Radeon R9 M390X vs Quadro P3000 Mobile

Place in the ranking	325	474
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	15.48	8.59
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	GP104	Amethyst
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1280	2048
Core clock speed	1088 MHz	723 MHz
Boost clock speed	1215 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	97.20	92.54
Floating-point processing power	3.11 TFLOPS	2.961 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	80	128

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	large	large
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1753 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	168 GB/s	160.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Eyefinity	-	+
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
DualGraphics	-	+
ZeroCore	-	+
Switchable graphics	-	+
Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	Not Listed
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
Mantle	-	+
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

P3000 Mobile 16.87
+80.2%

R9 M390X 9.36

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

P3000 Mobile 6486
+80.3%

R9 M390X 3597

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

P3000 Mobile 12105
+28.1%

R9 M390X 9448

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	65 +85.7%	35−40 −85.7%
4K	31 +93.8%	16−18 −93.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Elden Ring	50−55 +92.6%	27−30 −92.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +80%	30−33 −80%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +86.5%	35−40 −86.5%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +84%	24−27 −84%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +60%	24−27 −60%
Valorant	65−70 +100%	30−35 −100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +80%	30−33 −80%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Dota 2	60−65 +81.8%	30−35 −81.8%
Elden Ring	50−55 +92.6%	27−30 −92.6%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +53.8%	35−40 −53.8%
Fortnite	90−95 +67.3%	55−60 −67.3%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +86.5%	35−40 −86.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +81.8%	30−35 −81.8%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +84%	24−27 −84%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +61.6%	70−75 −61.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +60%	24−27 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +85.7%	27−30 −85.7%
Valorant	65−70 +100%	30−35 −100%
World of Tanks	200−210 +52.6%	130−140 −52.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +80%	30−33 −80%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Dota 2	60−65 +81.8%	30−35 −81.8%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +53.8%	35−40 −53.8%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +86.5%	35−40 −86.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +61.6%	70−75 −61.6%
Valorant	65−70 +100%	30−35 −100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +127%	10−12 −127%
Elden Ring	27−30 +108%	12−14 −108%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +249%	45−50 −249%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
World of Tanks	110−120 +74.6%	65−70 −74.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +88.9%	18−20 −88.9%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +115%	20−22 −115%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +110%	20−22 −110%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +124%	16−18 −124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +100%	10−12 −100%
Valorant	40−45 +87%	21−24 −87%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Elden Ring	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +52.6%	18−20 −52.6%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +85.2%	27−30 −85.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +52.6%	18−20 −52.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Dota 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Fortnite	20−22 +100%	10−11 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Valorant	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%

This is how P3000 Mobile and R9 M390X compete in popular games:

P3000 Mobile is 86% faster in 1080p
P3000 Mobile is 94% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the P3000 Mobile is 249% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, P3000 Mobile surpassed R9 M390X in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.87	9.36
Recency	11 January 2017	5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt

P3000 Mobile has a 80.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390X in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R9 M390X is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.