Radeon Pro Vega II vs R9 380

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Radeon Pro Vega II, including specs and performance data.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.90

Pro Vega II outperforms R9 380 by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking33599
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.0216.38
Power efficiency5.805.89
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameAntiguaVega 20
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)3 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro Vega II has 82% better value for money than R9 380.

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 cores17924096
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data1574 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz1720 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt475 Watt
Texture fill rate108.6440.3
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS14.09 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs112256

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Apple MPX
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotQuad-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5HBM2
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit4096 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz806 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s825.3 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 DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan+1.3
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.

R9 380 15.90
Pro Vega II 40.42
+154%

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
Pro Vega II 15596
+154%

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 HD62
−142%
150−160
+142%
4K28
−150%
70−75
+150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.2114.66
4K7.1131.41

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−150%
90−95
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−150%
130−140
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−150%
80−85
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−143%
90−95
+143%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−133%
100−105
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−145%
250−260
+145%
Hitman 3 30−33
−150%
75−80
+150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−150%
200−210
+150%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−141%
130−140
+141%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−150%
110−120
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−150%
130−140
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−147%
200−210
+147%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−150%
90−95
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−150%
130−140
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−150%
80−85
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−143%
90−95
+143%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−133%
100−105
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−145%
250−260
+145%
Hitman 3 30−33
−150%
75−80
+150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−150%
200−210
+150%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−141%
130−140
+141%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−150%
110−120
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−150%
130−140
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100
−150%
250−260
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−147%
200−210
+147%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−150%
90−95
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−150%
80−85
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−143%
90−95
+143%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−145%
250−260
+145%
Hitman 3 30−33
−150%
75−80
+150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−150%
200−210
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−150%
130−140
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−150%
75−80
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−147%
200−210
+147%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−150%
110−120
+150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−142%
75−80
+142%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−150%
60−65
+150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−131%
30−33
+131%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−150%
45−50
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
−150%
210−220
+150%
Hitman 3 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−150%
80−85
+150%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−150%
70−75
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−147%
240−250
+147%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Hitman 3 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−150%
200−210
+150%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−137%
45−50
+137%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−138%
50−55
+138%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−150%
35−40
+150%

This is how R9 380 and Pro Vega II compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega II is 142% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega II is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.90 40.42
Recency 18 June 2015 3 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 475 Watt

R9 380 has 150% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has a 154.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 380 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation 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
AMD Radeon Pro Vega II
Radeon Pro Vega II

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
2.4 80 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega II 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.