Radeon R9 M390 vs Pro 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560 with Radeon R9 M390, including specs and performance data.
R9 M390 outperforms Pro 560 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 481 | 447 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.37 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 9 June 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 | 1024 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 5000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.858 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
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 | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 35−40
−22.9%
| 43
+22.9%
|
| 4K | 16−18
−25%
| 20
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−10.7%
|
30−35
+10.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−10.7%
|
30−35
+10.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−5%
|
60−65
+5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−10.7%
|
30−35
+10.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−10.7%
|
30−35
+10.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−5%
|
60−65
+5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18
−38.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−5%
|
60−65
+5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−15.8%
|
40−45
+15.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
−10.5%
|
60−65
+10.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Pro 560 and R9 M390 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 23% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 560 is 39% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 560 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- R9 M390 is ahead in 67 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.01 | 10.06 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 9 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pro 560 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
R9 M390, on the other hand, has a 11.7% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R9 M390 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
