General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores17922048Compute units28no dataBoost clock speed970 MHz1000 MHzNumber of transistors5,000 million4,313 millionManufacturing process technology28 nm28 nmPower consumption [TDP]190 Watt250 WattTexture fill rate108.6128.0Floating-point performance3,476 gflops4,096 gflops
Size and 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 3.0PCIe 3.0InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16Length221 mm275 mmWidth2-slot2-slotForm factorfull height / full length / dual slotno dataSupplementary power connectors2 x 6-pin1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinBridgeless CrossFire1no data
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5High bandwidth memory [HBM]-no dataMaximum RAM amount4 GB3 GBMemory bus width256 Bit384 BitMemory clock speed970 MHzno dataMemory bandwidth182.4 GB/s288 GB/sShared memory--
Video outputs and ports
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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortEyefinity++Number of Eyefinity displays6no dataHDMI++DisplayPort support++
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
AppAcceleration-+CrossFire11Enduro--FRTC1no dataFreeSync11HD3D++LiquidVR11PowerTune+-TressFXno data1TrueAudio++ZeroCore+-UVDno data+VCE+no dataDDMA audio++
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12Shader Model6.35.1OpenGL4.54.6OpenCL2.01.2Vulkan++Mantle+-
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 outperforms R9 280X by 6% in our combined benchmark results.
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
R9 380 outperforms R9 280X by 6% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
R9 280X outperforms R9 380 by 11% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
R9 380 outperforms R9 280X by 13% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
R9 280X outperforms R9 380 by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
R9 280X outperforms R9 380 by 3% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
R9 380 outperforms R9 280X by 6% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
R9 280X outperforms R9 380 by 10% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R9 380 and Radeon R9 280X. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
Bitcoin / BTC [SHA256] 404 Mh/s 494 Mh/s Decred / DCR [Decred] 0.66 Gh/s 1.07 Gh/s Ethereum / ETH [DaggerHashimoto] 18 Mh/s 14.42 Mh/s Monero / XMR [CryptoNight] 0.48 kh/s 0.5 kh/s Zcash / ZEC [Equihash] 168.45 Sol/s 285 Sol/s
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 HD65
+0%
65
+0%
4K25 31
Performance in popular games
Full HD Low Preset
Cyberpunk 207724−27 24−27
Full HD Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla27−30
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Battlefield 550−55
+3.8%
50−55
−3.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
Cyberpunk 207724−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Far Cry 540−45
+5%
40−45
−5%
Far Cry New Dawn40−45
+7.3%
40−45
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 455−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
Hitman 345−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Red Dead Redemption 227−30
+8%
24−27
−8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Full HD High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla27−30
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Battlefield 550−55
+3.8%
50−55
−3.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
Cyberpunk 207724−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Far Cry 540−45
+5%
40−45
−5%
Far Cry New Dawn40−45
+7.3%
40−45
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 455−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
Hitman 345−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Metro Exodus24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Red Dead Redemption 227−30
+8%
24−27
−8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt51
+6.3%
48
−6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Full HD Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla27−30
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Battlefield 550−55
+3.8%
50−55
−3.8%
Cyberpunk 207724−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Far Cry 540−45
+5%
40−45
−5%
Far Cry New Dawn40−45
+7.3%
40−45
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 455−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt30
+50%
20
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
1440p High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare21−24
+4.5%
21−24
−4.5%
Hitman 324−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Metro Exodus14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 212−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
1440p Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Battlefield 530−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 20779−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Far Cry 527−30
+8%
24−27
−8%
Far Cry New Dawn30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 430−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt21−24
+10.5%
18−20
−10.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
4K High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Hitman 314−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Metro Exodus8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 29−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
4K Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Battlefield 516−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 20773−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 512−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Far Cry New Dawn16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Forza Horizon 421−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Watch Dogs: Legion6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
This is how R9 380 and R9 280X compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- R9 280X is 0% faster than R9 380
4K resolution:
- R9 280X is 24% faster than R9 380
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 380 is 50% faster than the R9 280X.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 380 is ahead in 66 tests [97%]
- there's a draw in 2 tests [3%]
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score 15.93 15.03 Recency 26 June 2015 8 October 2013 Cost $199 $299 Memory bus width 256 384 Pipelines / CUDA cores 1792 2048 Memory bandwidth 182.4 288 Power consumption [TDP] 190 Watt 250 Watt
We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 380 and Radeon R9 280X. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your own vote
Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.
Radeon R9 380
Radeon R9 280X
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
User ratings: view and submit
Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.
Rate AMD Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:
Rate AMD Radeon R9 280X on a scale of 1 to 5:
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.