Winner
AMD Radeon R9 390
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R9 390 based on its benchmarks.
See full details Radeon RX 580 vs R9 390 |
Released April, 2017
AMD Radeon RX 580
- 1.3 GHz
- 8 GB GDDR5
7.2 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Aug, 2017)So, if you have 16GB of RAM you could dedicate 4-6GB of it, so it would - in a way - combine with the 8GB of HBM2 for up to 14GB of VRAM.
VS
Released June, 2015
AMD Radeon R9 390
- 1 GHz
- 8 GB GDDR5
7.7 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!PowerColor is introducing a new triple-slot, triple-fan thermal solution with a great look and feel because of its metal construction, which definitely beats the plastic surfaces we're seeing on other cards.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 580 vs R9 390 among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.7 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | AMD Radeon R9 390GPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1,257 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 8,000 MHz | vs | 6,000 MHz | Around 35% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 6,175 GFLOPS | vs | 5,120 GFLOPS | More than 20% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 193 GTexel/s | vs | 160 GTexel/s | More than 20% higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 2,000 MHz | vs | 1,500 MHz | Around 35% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 185W | vs | 275W | Around 35% lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly more render output processors | 64 | vs | 32 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 64 GPixel/s | vs | 42.88 GPixel/s | Around 50% higher pixel rate | |||
| Better particle simulation score | 861.53 mInteraction/s | vs | 683.57 mInteraction/s | More than 25% better particle simulation score | |||
| Wider memory bus | 512 bit | vs | 256 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
Report a correction
