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 390 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:512 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):275 W

AMD Radeon R9 390 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 27 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon R9 390
6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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 79% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

8.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 79% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 62%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 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 87% of models
Score components

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

5.2

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 87%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (27)
12 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 15 video reviews, each 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–²Better than 51%
?

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
  • amd-radeon-r9-390
amd-radeon-r9-390
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon R9 390

Based on 12 · 15

Reviewers like how it stacks up against rivals, its gaming speed, quiet running and ample memory, but dislike its high power draw.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon R9 390

Based on 227 owners sharing their experience in online comments

71%positive13%mixed16%negative

Owners praise its lasting gaming performance and value, while heat and fading driver support are the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the card runs very hot under load, often reaching 90 to 94 °C, and is loud unless the fans are set higher or the case airflow is improved.28
  • Several owners report cards dying or failing, such as burned power components, a shorted PCB, or fans that broke after years of use.15
  • Owners say AMD ended driver updates for this card, so newer games stop getting fixes and performance tuning.14
  • Owners report driver updates that reset settings, add artifacts, or stop fans from running, with AMD releasing fixes slowly.10
  • Owners say it struggles to hold 60 fps in demanding games like BF1 at 1080p on medium settings, and falls behind at 1440p.8
  • Owners report black screens or crashes under heavy load, sometimes linked to a failing card or a power supply problem.7
  • Owners report screen artifacts such as black-and-white streaks or flickering, sometimes after a driver update or when switching monitors.7
  • Owners say the fans get loud under load and some report coil whine, especially on reference or cheaper versions.7
  • Owners report fans that stay on, fans that stop or break, and fan control that needed a BIOS mod or software setup.7
  • Owners say the card draws a lot of power, which raises electricity bills, especially with multiple cards in a system.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R9 390

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 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 87% of models
Score components:

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

5.2

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.1

Connectivity

4.7
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 87.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% 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
8,855 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 8,855 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 86.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,320 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,320 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 88.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.12 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.12 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 86% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% 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
512 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 512 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
384 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 384 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 60.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 94.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% 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
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
275 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 275 W, which is higher than that of 67.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
275 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 275 W under peak load, which is higher than 64.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
275 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 275 W, which is higher than that of 63.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
275x 109x 36 mm
Length
275 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 275 mm long, which is shorter than 55.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
129 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 129 mm tall, which is taller than 58.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.9% 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
1,312 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,312 g, which is heavier than 66.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon R9 390 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 320 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (512 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    512 bit vs 192 bit
  • 3.43x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    12 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 15 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 5.78x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R9 390 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£90 vs £520).
    £90 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    12 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 15 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 5.78x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R9 390 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£90 vs £520).
    £90 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • 320 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (512 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    512 bit vs 192 bit
  • 3.43x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 60.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,000 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
  • 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).
  • 47.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 60.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,000 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
  • 47.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 57.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (160 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    160 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/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
  • 60.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (64 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    64 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 77.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.12 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    June 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 60.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (8,855 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    8,855 points vs 22,638 points
  • 69.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 72.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,320 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,320 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 82.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (5.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    5.12 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (384 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    384 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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.
  • 72.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 49% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (438 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    438 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 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.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 27.9% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (275 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    275 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 23 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    60 °C vs 37 °C
  • 25% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (275 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    275 W vs 220 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • 4 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (129 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    129 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

4.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
31/05/2024
Retro benchmark test · 10 games at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 barely benefits from its eight gigabytes, so only buy it cheap, not at a premium over older cards.
9.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
08/11/2022
Hands-on review · game tests and value for money
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 still plays modern games well at 1080p, and for the price paid, it's hard to fault.
7.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
03/12/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks and driver issues
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is a good alternative to the R9 Fury if you find one at a good price, so watch the market.
5.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
01/07/2021
Revisit · 15-game benchmark and value check
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is still capable for its age, but not worth buying used when a GTX 1060 costs only a little more.
7.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
29/04/2021
Benchmark review · 1080p game tests and price check
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is still fine at 1080p for esports and older AAA games, but it's overpriced on the used market.
9.0
Technology Hive
≈ estimated
22/07/2018
Hands-on revisit · second-hand card rebuilt with AIO cooler
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is still worth keeping, and its AIO cooler holds temperatures steady, well below stock.
7.0
DannyzReviews
≈ estimated
21/03/2016
Stock vs overclock benchmarks · game and synthetic tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 gains about 10 FPS from overclocking in GPU-bound games, so it's worth it only for high-refresh or high-resolution setups.
9.5
Bang4BuckPC Gamer
≈ estimated
01/12/2015
Hands-on review · game tests, temperatures and noise
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is the best value in its class: quiet, cool and ideal for 1080p gaming.
9.0
PCWizKids Tech Talk
≈ estimated
10/11/2015
Hands-on review · overclocking, cooling and benchmark tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is a strong overclocker with an effective cooler, and a cheaper alternative to the 390X.
8.0
RedGamingTech
≈ estimated
30/06/2015
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and value comparison
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 390 is a good upgrade from older cards, but a sideways step for 290 owners.
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
01/10/2015
Hands-on review · Overclocked card
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 390 Nitro is a quiet, fast card with 8GB of memory for high-resolution textures, but it draws a lot of power.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
03/09/2015
Hands-on test · Power and performance
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 390 is fast at 1080p and 1440p with 8GB of memory, but its high power draw suits tower PCs better than small builds.
4.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
18/06/2015
Benchmark review · Driver issues
Verdict
The Radeon R9 390 isn't recommended for now, since black flickering made games unplayable in testing, and a GTX 970 is the safer buy.
9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
01/10/2015
Lab test · 1440p performance
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon R9 390 Nitro is a strong 1440p card that beats the GTX 970 and trades blows with the GTX 980, but 4K needs two of them.
8.0
redgamingtech.com
≈ estimated
29/06/2015
Benchmark review · Sapphire Nitro
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro R9 390 is aimed at 1440p, where every tested game stayed above 50fps, though it's a modest step up from the 290X.
8.0
hardware-mag.de
≈ estimated
30/04/2016
Lab test · Fan-free desktop
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 390 Nitro suits Full HD and WQHD gaming, stays silent at the desktop, but needs a strong power supply under full load.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
16/02/2005
Lab test · Cooling and noise
Verdict
The Club 3D R9 390 royalQueen OC is loud in games, traps heat inside the case, and barely overclocks, so we don't recommend it.
8.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
10/09/2026
Hands-on review · Compact card
Verdict
The Gigabyte R9 390 G1 Gaming is a compact, near-silent card that performs close to the GTX 970, but its locked voltage limits overclocking.
8.5
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
25/09/2026
Hands-on test · Overclocking
Verdict
The PowerColor R9 390 PCS+ is a quiet, well-cooled card with voltage unlocked for tuning, though it is hard to find in some markets.
8.1
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
09/09/2015
Hands-on review · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The Asus R9 390 Strix is a quiet, well-built 1080p card with 8GB of memory, but its cooler leaves the memory chips uncooled.
8.5
rehwolution.it
✓ explicit
19/10/2015
Benchmark tests · Sapphire Nitro
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 390 Nitro 8GB runs close to the GTX 970 in these tests, but stays clearly behind the GTX 980 at 1080p.
9.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
27/10/2015
Lab test · Tri-X cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro R9 390 is a quiet, fast card with 8GB of memory for future games, but it is large and power hungry.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R9 390

  • Large 8GB VRAM buffer provides future-proofing for high-resolution textures and modern titles
  • Strong 1440p gaming performance, often outperforming the rival GTX 970 and occasionally matching the GTX 980
  • Excellent value for money at launch, offering high-end performance for a mid-range price
  • Solid legacy support for DirectX 12 and Vulkan APIs
  • Aftermarket cooling solutions (like MSI's Twin Frozr) are noted for being relatively quiet and effective under load

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R9 390

  • Extremely high power consumption, often requiring a high-quality 600W-750W PSU
  • High operating temperatures and heat output, which can increase ambient room temperature
  • End of official driver support (EOL) from AMD, making it a 'legacy' product with potential issues in new game releases
  • Large physical dimensions (nearly a foot long) may not fit in smaller or compact PC cases
  • Aged architecture (effectively a refresh of the R9 290) with limited overclocking headroom

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R9 390 is a high-end graphics card built on the 28nm Grenada PRO architecture, featuring 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and a substantial 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wide 512-bit bus. Operating at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a memory bandwidth of 384 GB/s, it was designed to offer excellent performance for 1440p gaming and full support for DirectX 12. Its main pros include the massive VRAM capacity, which provides significant future-proofing for high-resolution textures, and competitive performance that often trades blows with Nvidia's GTX 970 and 980. However, its primary cons are its extremely high power consumption with a 275W TDP, resulting in significant heat output and a requirement for a robust power supply, alongside the fact that it has reached end-of-life status for official driver support.

Compare AMD Radeon R9 390 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 390 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found