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

Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):190 W

Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 7 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380
6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

8.2

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

▼Worse than 83% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

▼Worse than 54%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

▼Worse than 91%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 69% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
▲Better than 69%
?

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
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
sapphire-nitro-radeon-r9-380
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 Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380

Based on 4 · 3

Reviewers like its quiet fans, are split on gaming performance, and some feel the cooling could be better.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

4.3
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 93.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% 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
6,000 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,000 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 92% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,168 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,168 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.48 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6X
This graphics card uses GDDR6X memory, which is newer than on 57.1% of graphics cards and equal to 22.4% 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
185.6 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 185.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,800 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,800 MHz, which is slower than that of 95% 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
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% 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
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
190 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 190 W, which is lower than that of 54.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
225 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 225 W under peak load, which is higher than 52.5% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
190 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 190 W, which is lower than that of 58.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
225 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
237.35x 126.15x 37 mm
Length
237.35 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 237.35 mm long, which is shorter than 78% of graphics cards.
Height
126.15 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 126.15 mm tall, which is taller than 53.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% 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
907 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 907 g, which is lighter than 62.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 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
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 44.85 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (237.4 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    237.35 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 3.06x cheaper
    Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£170 vs £520).
    £170 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 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
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 44.85 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (237.4 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    237.35 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 59.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,010 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,010 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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).
  • 47.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,010 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,010 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 71.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (108.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    108.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 59.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,010 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,010 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
  • 47.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,010 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,010 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 80.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (31.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    31.52 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 71.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (108.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    108.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 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
  • 84.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.48 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
  • 73.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,000 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,000 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 73.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,168 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,168 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 88.2% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (3.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    3.48 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 54.2% 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.
    0.22 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 2,560 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,792 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,792 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 69.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,800 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,800 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 58.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (185.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    185.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 17.1% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,450 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,450 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 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 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.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 78.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,000 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.
  • 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
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 13.2 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (48.6 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    48.6 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 13 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (50 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    50 °C vs 37 °C
  • 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

9.0
iVadim
≈ estimated
15/03/2016
Hands-on review · temperature, fan noise and overclock tests
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 is recommended if you can live with its default power limit throttling in demanding games.
9.0
JayzTwoCents
≈ estimated
14/08/2015
Performance review · 1080p, 1440p and 4K benchmarks
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 handles 1080p gaming at medium to high settings well, but struggles at 4K.
Brand video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
nag.co.za
✓ explicit
24/07/2015
Hardware review · Full HD card
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 380 Nitro is a quiet, strong 1080p card, though its single DisplayPort limits multi-monitor setups.
8.3
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
03/07/2015
Benchmark test · Mid-range Radeon
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 380 Nitro OC is a whisper-quiet mid-range card with a factory overclock, though on paper its gains over the R9 285 are small.
8.0
hardware-mag.de
≈ estimated
01/08/2015
Benchmark test · CrossFire pairing
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 380 Nitro is fast enough for Full HD gaming and its 4GB of memory suits higher resolutions, but the box contents are very sparse.
7.0
pc-gaming.it
≈ estimated
11/12/2016
Benchmark test · 1080p card
Verdict
The Sapphire R9 380 Nitro is a solid 1080p card with 4GB of VRAM, but it is mostly a rebrand of the R9 285.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance, often maintaining 60 FPS in titles like Overwatch and CS:GO at high settings
  • Superior cooling design with dual 10cm fans that keep temperatures stable around 70°C under load
  • Quiet operation thanks to 'Intelligent Fan Control' (0dB mode) which stops fans during light tasks
  • High build quality featuring a sleek black shroud and, in later versions, a protective backplate
  • The 4GB VRAM provides a significant advantage over 2GB competitors at 1080p and entry-level 1440p

What customers don't like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380

  • High power consumption compared to Nvidia's GTX 960, requiring a reliable 500W+ power supply
  • Limited overclocking headroom with minimal performance gains from manual tuning
  • Drivers are now in legacy status, leading to potential issues with newer titles or specific game engines like Unreal Engine 5
  • Occasional reports of fan longevity issues (bearing wear) after several years of service
  • Port layout is somewhat restrictive for modern multi-monitor setups, typically only offering one DisplayPort

Verdict

The Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 is a mid-range graphics card built on AMD's 28nm Antigua graphics processor and GCN 3.0 architecture, featuring 1,792 stream processors, 112 texture units, and 32 ROPs. It typically comes with 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit interface, factory overclocked to a 985MHz core clock and 1450MHz memory clock (5.8Gbps effective). Main characteristics include its Dual-X cooling system with twin 100mm fans and a robust black shroud with a brushed aluminum backplate. Pros of this card include excellent 1080p gaming performance, a zero-decibel fan mode for silent operation during light tasks, and a physical dual BIOS switch. However, cons include a relatively high power draw of 190W–225W requiring two 6-pin power connectors, and its performance can struggle with modern titles at 1440p or 4K resolutions.

Compare Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 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 Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found