GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon R9 380

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 with GeForce GTX 960M, including specs and performance data.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.90
+81.9%

R9 380 outperforms GTX 960M by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking335485
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.02no data
Power efficiency5.808.07
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameAntiguaGM107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1792640
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data1096 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz1176 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate108.647.04
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11240

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinno data
SLI options-+
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s80 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data
GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
BatteryBoost-+
Ansel-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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.

R9 380 15.90
+81.9%
GTX 960M 8.74

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.

R9 380 6134
+81.8%
GTX 960M 3374

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.

R9 380 12191
+131%
GTX 960M 5278

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 380 8218
+90.3%
GTX 960M 4318

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 380 50723
+68.6%
GTX 960M 30086

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 380 303773
+34.2%
GTX 960M 226308

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:

900p170−180
+78.9%
95
−78.9%
Full HD62
+82.4%
34
−82.4%
1440p24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%
4K28
+115%
13
−115%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.21no data
1440p8.29no data
4K7.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+44%
25
−44%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+73.3%
30
−73.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+32.1%
28
−32.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+38.7%
31
−38.7%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+21.4%
84
−21.4%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+60%
50−55
−60%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+74.2%
31
−74.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+8.3%
48
−8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+37.3%
55−60
−37.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+16.1%
31
−16.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+126%
23
−126%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+54.2%
24
−54.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+87%
23
−87%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+43.7%
71
−43.7%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+60%
50−55
−60%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+108%
26
−108%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+79.3%
27−30
−79.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100
+37%
73
−37%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+37.3%
55−60
−37.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+227%
11
−227%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+106%
18
−106%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+308%
25
−308%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+60%
50−55
−60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+79.3%
27−30
−79.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+114%
14
−114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+37.3%
55−60
−37.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+121%
14
−121%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+60%
15
−60%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+100%
8
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+80%
10
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+86.7%
45
−86.7%
Hitman 3 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+86.7%
15
−86.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+73.2%
55−60
−73.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+167%
6
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+71.4%
7
−71.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+129%
35−40
−129%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+100%
8
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+90%
10
−90%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

This is how R9 380 and GTX 960M compete in popular games:

  • R9 380 is 79% faster in 900p
  • R9 380 is 82% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 71% faster in 1440p
  • R9 380 is 115% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 380 is 308% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 380 surpassed GTX 960M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.90 8.74
Recency 18 June 2015 13 March 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 75 Watt

R9 380 has a 81.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.

GTX 960M, on the other hand, has 153.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 380
Radeon R9 380
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 789 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 1031 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.