
Radeon R9 380X vs RTX A400

Radeon R9 380X
Popular choices:

RTX A400
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RTX A400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A400 is significantly newer (2024 vs 2015). The RTX A400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 380X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 380X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RTX A400.
| Insight | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 380X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $58 versus $135 for the RTX A400, it costs 57% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 138.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+138.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($58) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($135) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 380X and RTX A400

Radeon R9 380X
The Radeon R9 380X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 19 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 970 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,131 points. Launch price was $229.

RTX A400
The RTX A400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1762 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,983 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 380X scores 6,131 and the RTX A400 reaches 5,983 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 380X is built on GCN 3.0 while the RTX A400 uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Radeon R9 380X) vs 768 (RTX A400). Raw compute: 3.973 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 380X) vs 2.706 TFLOPS (RTX A400). Boost clocks: 970 MHz vs 1762 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,131+2% | 5,983 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+167% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.973 TFLOPS+47% | 2.706 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 970 MHz | 1762 MHz+82% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+433% | 24 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 380X draws 250W versus the RTX A400's 50W — a 133.3% difference. The RTX A400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R9 380X) vs 350W (RTX A400). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 50W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | 2x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 221mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 24.5 | 119.7+389% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 380X launched at $229 MSRP and currently averages $58, while the RTX A400 launched at $135 and now averages $135. The Radeon R9 380X costs 57% less ($77 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 105.7 (Radeon R9 380X) vs 44.3 (RTX A400) — the Radeon R9 380X offers 138.6% better value. The RTX A400 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229 | $135-41% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $58-57% | $135 |
| Performance per Dollar | 105.7+139% | 44.3 |
| Codename | Antigua | GA107 |
| Release | November 19 2015 | April 16 2024 |
| Ranking | #394 | #397 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












