Radeon RX 590 vs R9 380

Place in the ranking	339	228
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.21	25.34
Power efficiency	5.84	9.70
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Antigua	Polaris 30
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	15 November 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$279

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 590 has 175% 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 cores	1792	2304
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1469 MHz
Boost clock speed	970 MHz	1545 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	108.6	222.5
Floating-point processing power	3.476 TFLOPS	7.119 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	144

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 3.0 x16
Length	221 mm	241 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Form factor	full height / full length / dual slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
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	GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	-	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	970 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	182.4 GB/s	256.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI, 3x 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	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
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.

R9 380 15.90

RX 590 24.34
+53.1%

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

RX 590 9390
+53.1%

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

RX 590 23363
+91.6%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 380 29722

RX 590 48454
+63%

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

RX 590 16814
+105%

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

RX 590 86825
+71.2%

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

RX 590 397712
+30.9%

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 −45.6%	99 +45.6%
1440p	35−40 −60%	56 +60%
4K	25 −44%	36 +44%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.93	2.82
1440p	5.69	4.98
4K	7.96	7.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

−60%

40−45
+60%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −80.6%	65 +80.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −231%	86 +231%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −162%	136 +162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −116%	69 +116%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −60%	40−45 +60%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −143%	90 +143%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −109%	90 +109%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −169%	274 +169%
Hitman 3	30−33 −63.3%	45−50 +63.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −276%	301 +276%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −130%	124 +130%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −107%	91 +107%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −169%	140 +169%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −236%	272 +236%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −214%	113 +214%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −181%	73 +181%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −135%	122 +135%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −100%	64 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −60%	40−45 +60%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −100%	74 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −65.1%	71 +65.1%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −154%	259 +154%
Hitman 3	30−33 −63.3%	45−50 +63.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −259%	287 +259%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −79.6%	97 +79.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −68.2%	74 +68.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −119%	114 +119%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100 +88.7%	50−55 −88.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −222%	261 +222%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −8.3%	39 +8.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −138%	62 +138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −43.8%	46 +43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −60%	40−45 +60%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −48.6%	55 +48.6%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +12.1%	91 −12.1%
Hitman 3	30−33 −63.3%	45−50 +63.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −20%	96 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −92.3%	100 +92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 −70%	51 +70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +131%	35 −131%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

−45.5%

64
+45.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −48.4%	45−50 +48.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −54.2%	35−40 +54.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −56.3%	24−27 +56.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −323%	55 +323%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −124%	38 +124%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −55.6%	27−30 +55.6%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −65.5%	130−140 +65.5%
Hitman 3	18−20 −52.6%	27−30 +52.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −125%	72 +125%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −107%	58 +107%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −141%	70 +141%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −76.5%	30−33 +76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −109%	203 +109%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−65.4%

43
+65.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −144%	39 +144%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −117%	26 +117%
Hitman 3	12−14 −58.3%	18−20 +58.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +40.4%	57 −40.4%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −125%	36 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 −68.4%	32 +68.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −111%	19 +111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −425%	42 +425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −150%	20 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −88.9%	17 +88.9%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −119%	46 +119%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −150%	40 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −117%	13 +117%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−114%

30
+114%

This is how R9 380 and RX 590 compete in popular games:

RX 590 is 46% faster in 1080p
RX 590 is 60% faster in 1440p
RX 590 is 44% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 380 is 131% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 590 is 425% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 380 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
RX 590 is ahead in 68 tests (94%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.90	24.34
Recency	18 June 2015	15 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	175 Watt

RX 590 has a 53.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 8.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 380 in performance tests.

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