OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon R9 370X review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):180 W

AMD Radeon R9 370X Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2/10

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

4.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 95% of graphics cards
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 85%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 93%
4.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

4.0

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 94%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £160
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R9 370X

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

4.0
Reviews score
4.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,724 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,724 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,008 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,008 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1950 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1950 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.64 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.64 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
179.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 179.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,600 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,600 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
6
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 6 displays, which is more than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
180 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 180 W, which is lower than that of 57.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
180 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 180 W under peak load, which is lower than 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
180 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 180 W, which is lower than that of 61.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
180 W
Show more
Size
221x 111x 38 mm
Length
221 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 221 mm long, which is shorter than 84.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon R9 370X vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 61.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (221 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    221 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 3.25x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R9 370X is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 16.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (180 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    180 W vs 215 W
  • 61.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (221 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    221 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 58.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,030 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,030 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 44.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    4.0

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.0 vs 7.2
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 49% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (980 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    980 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 44.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    4.0

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.0 vs 7.2
  • 12.7% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R9 370X has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.58 vs 7.4).
    6.58 vs 7.41
  • 58.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,030 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,030 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 49% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (980 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    980 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 78.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (82.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    82.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 79.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (33 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    33 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 88.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.64 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    August 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 82.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,008 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,008 points vs 22,638 points
  • 88.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,724 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,724 points vs 14,779 points
  • 83.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1950 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,950 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 91.1% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (2.6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    2.64 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 66.7% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.16 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 98.9% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (2.6 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    2.64 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 3,072 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,280 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,280 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 70.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 60% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (179.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    179.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 87.8% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,800 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,800 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
28/05/2023
Hands-on test · Red Dead Redemption 2 at several settings
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 370X performed better than expected in Red Dead Redemption 2, though the results may be a one-off.
5.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
02/10/2022
Hands-on test · 13 games at low settings
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 370X is a poor choice in 2022 given its high power draw and weak performance, unless you only want a cheap card.
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R9 370X

  • Reliable 1080p performance for older and less demanding AAA titles like GTA V and CS:GO.
  • Solid value for money in the ultra-budget used market.
  • Offers a 256-bit memory bus, which provides better bandwidth compared to many entry-level modern cards.
  • Available with 4GB of VRAM, making it surprisingly capable for light modern titles at low settings.
  • Supports multi-display technology for multi-monitor setups.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R9 370X

  • Legacy status: Official driver support from AMD has ended, which can cause issues with new game launches.
  • Limited DirectX 12 support (feature level 11_1), leading to compatibility or performance issues with modern DX12-only titles.
  • High power consumption (TDP) for its performance class, requiring two 6-pin power connectors.
  • Runs hot and can have loud fan noise, especially on older blower-style or poorly cooled models.
  • Basically a rebrand of older GCN architecture (Pitcairn/Trinidad), offering only minor performance gains over the R9 270X.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R9 370X, launched in August 2015, is a performance-segment graphics card built on a 28 nm process featuring the Trinidad XT GPU and GCN 1.0 architecture. It is equipped with 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, operating at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost up to 1030 MHz. Main characteristics include 2 GB or 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wide 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s. Key pros include its solid 1080p gaming performance for its era, multi-display support, and a robust dual-slot cooling design. However, significant cons include its high 180W power consumption requiring dual 6-pin connectors, limited DirectX 12 feature level support (11_1), and a lack of modern driver updates.

Compare AMD Radeon R9 370X with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon R9 370X and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found