Last week AMD launched the Radeon R9 380X, the company’s latest mid-range video card. Based on a fully enabled GCN 1.2 Tonga GPU – a first for the desktop video card market – the R9 380X was timed to setup AMD product stack for the holidays and to dig out a spot in the gap between NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 970 and GTX 960 cards. By hitting NVIDIA a bit above the ever-popular $200 spot, AMD is aiming to edge out NVIDIA on price/performance while also snagging gamers looking to upgrade from circa 2012 video cards.

In AMD’s overall product stack the R9 380X is essentially a slightly faster version of the existing R9 380, designed to offer a bit more performance for a bit higher price. With R9 380 AMD went head-to-head with NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 960, launching at $200 for 2GB cards while also offering a sizable mix of 4GB cards. For the R9 380X AMD is enabling the last 4 of Tonga’s disabled CUs and making 4GB the baseline, which improves performance by 10% or so. In turn the new card is launching at $229, the only card that at official MSRPs is really aimed at the $200-$250 market.

AMD GPU Specification Comparison
  AMD Radeon R9 390 AMD Radeon R9 380X AMD Radeon R9 380 AMD Radeon 280X
Stream Processors 2560 2048 1792 2048
Texture Units 160 128 112 128
ROPs 64 32 32 32
Boost Clock 1000MHz 970MHz 970MHz 1000MHz
Memory Clock 6Gbps GDDR5 5.7Gbps GDDR5 5.5Gbps GDDR5 6Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 512-bit 256-bit 256-bit 384-bit
FP64 1/8 1/16 1/16 1/4
TrueAudio Y Y Y N
Transistor Count 6.2B 5.0B 5.0B 4.31B
Typical Board Power 275W 190W 190W 250W
Manufacturing Process TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm
Architecture GCN 1.1 GCN 1.2 GCN 1.2 GCN 1.0
GPU Hawaii Tonga Tonga Tahiti
Launch Date 06/18/15 11/19/15 06/18/15 10/11/13
Launch Price $329 $229 $199 $299

Recapping the specifications, the R9 380X is very straightforward card. Rather than R9 380’s 28 CUs, all 32 CUs are enabled for R9 380X. As this was the only thing disabled on R9 380, this means that the increased stream processors and texture resources are the only material GPU change as opposed to the R9 380. Otherwise we’re still looking at the same 32 ROPs backed by a 256-bit memory bus, all clocked at 970MHz.

Meanwhile as far as memory goes, the R9 380X sees AMD raise the default memory configuration from 2GB for the R9 380 to 4GB for this card. We’ve reached the point where 2GB cards are struggling even at 1080p – thanks in large part to the consoles and their 8GB of shared memory – so to see 4GB as the base configuration is a welcome change. R9 380 does offer both 2GB and 4GB, but as one might expect, 2GB was at launch (and still is) the more common SKU that for better or worse makes R9 380X stand apart from its older sibling even more. Otherwise the 5.7Gbps memory clockspeed of the R9 380X is a slight bump from 5.5Gbps of the 2GB R9 380, though it should be noted that 5.7Gbps was also the minimum for the 4GB R9 380 SKUs. So in practice just as how there’s no increase in the GPU clockspeed, there’s no increase in the memory clockspeed (or bandwidth) with 4GB cards.

Similarly, from a power perspective the R9 380X’s typical board power remains unchanged at 190W. In practice it will be slightly higher thanks to the enabled CUs, but otherwise AMD hasn’t made any significant changes to shift it one way or another. This also means that most (if not all) retail cards are minor variations of each partner's existing R9 380 4GB design, as they don't need new memory or power delivery circuitry to handle R9 380X.

From a performance perspective then the R9 380X is not a very exciting card. After 3 releases of the fully enabled Tahiti GPU – Radeon 7970, 7970 GHz Edition, and R9 280X – the architectural and clockspeed similarities of R9 380X mean that it’s essentially a fourth revision of this product. Which is to say that you’re looking at performance a percent or two better than the 7970, well-tread territory at this point. In a sense then the R9 380X is a de-facto $229 7970, with an extra 1GB of memory.

The R9 380X’s principle reason to exist at this point is to allow AMD to refresh their lineup by tapping the rest of Tonga’s GPU performance, both to have something new to close out the rest of the year and to give them a card that can sit solidly between NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 970 and GTX 960. That AMD is launching a fully enabled Tonga card now is somewhat arbitrary – we haven’t seen anything new in the $200 to $500 range since the GTX 960 launched in January and AMD could have launched it at any time since – and along those lines AMD tells us that they haven’t seen a need to launch this part until now. With the R9 380 otherwise shoring up the $199 price point until more recently, there’s always a trade-off to be had with having better positioning than the competition versus having too many products in your line (with the 300 + Fury series the tally is now 9 cards).

In AMD’s new lineup the R9 380X slots in between AMD’s more expensive R9 390 and the cheaper R9 380. AMD is promoting this card as an entry-level card for 2560x1440 gaming, though with the more strenuous games released in the last 6 months that is going to require some quality compromises to achieve. As it stands I’d consider the 390 more of a 1440p card, while the R9 380X is better positioned as AMD’s strongest 1080p card; only in the most demanding games should the R9 380X face any real challenge.

AMD Relative Benchmark Performance (1080p)
Card Performance Price
Radeon R9 390 157% $289
Radeon R9 380X 110% $229
Radeon R9 380 (2GB) 100% $179
Radeon R9 370 78% $129
Radeon HD 7850 63% N/A

As far as performance goes then, the R9 380X is about 10% faster than the 2GB R9 380 at 1080p, with the card taking a much more significant advantage in games where 2GB cards are memory bottlenecked. Otherwise the performance is almost exactly on-par with the 7970 and its variants, while the more powerful R9 390 has a sizable 43% performance advantage thanks to its greater CU count, memory bandwidth, and ROPs. This makes the R9 390 a spoiler on value - it's 43% more powerful for a price premium of 26% - though its final $290+ price tag ultimately puts it in its own class. Or to throw in a quick generational comparsion to AMD's original $250 GCN card, Radoen HD 7850, you're looking at a 75% increase in performance at this price bracket over 3 years.

Looking at the actual cards that have launched so far, most of the partners have reused their R9 380 designs, which is fitting given the similarities between the two cards. Meanwhile as Tonga has some headroom for the partners to play with, many of the R9 380X cards being sold include at least a minor factory overclock, even those cards being sold at MSRP. Ultimately baseline cards and cards with smaller overclocks start at $229, while cards with more significant OCs start at $239 – a $10 premium. The one exception to this in North America happens to be the card AMD sampled us for today's review, ASUS's STRIX R9 380X, with the base version retailing at $239 while the OC version retails at $259.

As for the competition, as I previously mentioned AMD will be slotting the R9 380X in between the GeForce GTX 970 and GTX 960. The GTX 970 quite a bit faster but also quite a bit more expensive then the R9 380X - though still a bit of an overall spoiler like the R9 390 - while the R9 380X will pass the 2GB GTX 960, albeit with a price premium of its own. At this point it’s safe to say that AMD holds a distinct edge on performance for the price, as they often do, though as has been the case all this generation they aren’t going to match NVIDIA’s power efficiency.

Fall/Winter 2015 GPU Pricing Comparison
Radeon R9 Fury $529  
  $469 GeForce GTX 980
Radeon R9 390X $379  
Radeon R9 390 $289 GeForce GTX 970
Radeon R9 380X $229  
Radeon R9 380 $179/$169 GeForce GTX 960
  $149 GeForce GTX 950
Radeon R9 370 $129  
Meet the ASUS STRIX R9 380X OC
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • funkforce - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Haha, funny you should ask that...

    Check the comments...

    January 2015

    "jeffrey - Thursday, July 02, 2015 - link
    Ryan Smith, any update on GTX 960
    Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 02, 2015 - link
    As soon as Fury is out of the way. "
  • extide - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Looks like you missed a comment, because there was one at one point that said that there will not be a 960 review. I don't have a direct link to it because I'm not obsessed with the topic, but yeah, it was said.
  • funkforce - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    You're right, I don't know when that was said. I waited months for that review, because I trust the unbiased reviews here and wanted to buy a new graphics card based on info I could count on.
    And I just really don't like when you keep promising things, stringing your readers on, and then never delivering. I don't care if the review gets posted, it's just how it was handled. I've been raised that a person's word means something (he told me personally on twitter that he would do it). And I'm sure you could go on that this is the internet etc. but when you've been reading a site since it's start, it's content means something, at least to me. I guess it's why we're all here to some extent. If you go back on your word, then you should at least let ppl. know, a bit more officially, than in a comment section of, I would assume, another article.
  • Samus - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    The problem with reviewing the GTX960 is the drivers have been optimizing around improving its performance all year, and every single card performs so different. The GTX960 overclocks incredibly well, some people hit 1400MHz is the board has the right power configuration. This is why you hear people talk about the GTX960 completely trumping the R9 28x/38x's when in reality, both GPU's give and take blows in various games at stock.

    But when overclocked, the GTX960 is a bit faster than an overclocked R9 28x/38x. I think this causes a lot of reviewers to tip-toe around these cards. And when you consider a GTX960 with 4GB is over $200 and a GTX970 with 4GB (er technically 3.5GB) is $260-$280 after rebate, it becomes muddled.
  • OrphanageExplosion - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link

    I own the GTX 960. Mine hits 1450MHz easily. I think they all do because temps and power consumption barely budge. I also own the R9 380 in 4GB configuration.

    Drivers have barely improved the 960 performance and the 380 is faster in almost every game I own. Overclocking gets the 960 to parity, or slightly better to a small extent where you can't really tell the difference.

    Of the two I'd take the 960 simply due to the efficiency, but driver updates have really made no difference to anything other than the games they were optimised for. Library titles have seen no improvement.
  • dananski - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    I also waited a while, checking the site often. I think I spotted some 960 benchmarks slipped into some analysis article on here many months later, but no post to say they'd been done, let alone a full review.

    It's not just the graphics section either. I really don't get why there are so many announcements and so few reviews on here these days. It's a shame because reviews like this one here are the reason I like AnandTech so much.
  • olivaw - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    I wanted the GTX 960 reviewed because it seems to be pretty good for an HTPC, since the power consumption is lower than most chips. I know the card is good, but I wanted an AnandTech review :)
  • drwhoglius - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    From Steam Hardware Survey

    October 2015 results

    GTX 970 3.80%
    GTX 960 2.16%

    R9 200 Series 1.06%
    R9 300 Series not yet measurable (or too new to be measured as GTX 950 isn't measured either)
  • Tikcus9666 - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Power difference is irrelevant in desktop PC's a 75W difference... 20 hours of usage at Full load is ~20p in the UK

    a 1000 hours of gaming (a years worth?) for an extra £10

    This does not factor in some of this usage is in Winter months, so the extra heat generated reduces the amount of heat required from other sources, thus reducing other heating costs
  • jasonelmore - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    what about idle power consumption? which uses 24/7 365 days.

    it can add up

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now