Quadro 400 vs Radeon R9 380

Place in the ranking	339	1261
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.21	0.01
Power efficiency	5.84	0.83
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Antigua	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	5 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$169

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 380 has 92000% better value for money than Quadro 400.

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	1792	48
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	970 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,000 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	32 Watt
Texture fill rate	108.6	7.200
Floating-point processing power	3.476 TFLOPS	0.108 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	112	16

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	221 mm	163 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Form factor	full height / full length / dual slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	None
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 type	GDDR5	DDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	-	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	970 MHz	770 MHz
Memory bandwidth	182.4 GB/s	12.32 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.3	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	1.2

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
+4084%

Quadro 400 0.38

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
+4045%

Quadro 400 148

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	68 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
4K	25	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.93	169.00
4K	7.96	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Battlefield 5	50−55 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +5000%	2−3 −5000%
Hitman 3	30−33	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +8000%	1−2 −8000%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Battlefield 5	50−55 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +5000%	2−3 −5000%
Hitman 3	30−33	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +8000%	1−2 −8000%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +5000%	2−3 −5000%
Hitman 3	30−33	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +8000%	1−2 −8000%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45
+4300%

1−2

−4300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +4100%	2−3 −4100%
Hitman 3	18−20	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35	0−1
Metro Exodus	27−30	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +4750%	2−3 −4750%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14	0−1
Hitman 3	12−14	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Metro Exodus	16−18	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

0−1

This is how R9 380 and Quadro 400 compete in popular games:

R9 380 is 6700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.90	0.38
Recency	18 June 2015	5 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	32 Watt

R9 380 has a 4084.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 400, on the other hand, has 493.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro 400 is a workstation one.

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