Arc B570 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Arc B570, including specs and performance data.
Arc B570 outperforms R9 M390 by a whopping 251% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 468 | 160 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 81.92 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.61 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Xe2 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 16 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 360.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 80 |
| TMUs | no data | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 144 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
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 | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 10 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 160 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 380.0 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 44
−241%
| 150−160
+241%
|
| 4K | 21
−233%
| 70−75
+233%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.46 |
| 4K | no data | 3.13 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−242%
|
130−140
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−246%
|
90−95
+246%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−246%
|
90−95
+246%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
−241%
|
75−80
+241%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−233%
|
130−140
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−239%
|
190−200
+239%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−242%
|
130−140
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−246%
|
90−95
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−247%
|
260−270
+247%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−246%
|
90−95
+246%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−233%
|
110−120
+233%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
−221%
|
450−500
+221%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−233%
|
130−140
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−242%
|
130−140
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−247%
|
260−270
+247%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−233%
|
150−160
+233%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
−248%
|
240−250
+248%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−241%
|
75−80
+241%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−239%
|
95−100
+239%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
This is how R9 M390 and Arc B570 compete in popular games:
- Arc B570 is 241% faster in 1080p
- Arc B570 is 233% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.29 | 32.63 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 16 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 10 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
Arc B570 has a 251.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook card while Arc B570 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
