AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs AMD Radeon R8 M365DX
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Vega 3 and AMD Radeon R8 M365DX videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory, API support. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Vega 3
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 37% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 888 vs 647
- Around 52% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 303 vs 199
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1412 vs 1229
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2111 vs 1370
- Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3174 vs 2017
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1412 vs 1229
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2111 vs 1370
- Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3174 vs 2017
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 February 2018 vs 3 June 2015 |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 888 vs 647 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 303 vs 199 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1412 vs 1229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2111 vs 1370 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3174 vs 2017 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1412 vs 1229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2111 vs 1370 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3174 vs 2017 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R8 M365DX
- 3x more core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 13% higher boost clock speed: 1125 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 4x more pipelines: 768 vs 192
- Around 42% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5601 vs 3949
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1125 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Pipelines | 768 vs 192 |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5601 vs 3949 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 3
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R8 M365DX
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | AMD Radeon R8 M365DX |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 888 | 647 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 303 | 199 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3949 | 5601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.049 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 183.156 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.75 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.933 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.006 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1412 | 1229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2111 | 1370 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3174 | 2017 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1412 | 1229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2111 | 1370 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3174 | 2017 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 418 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Vega 3 | AMD Radeon R8 M365DX | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Code name | Owl | Meso |
Launch date | 13 February 2018 | 3 June 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 1269 | 1272 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1125 MHz |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 900 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 384.0 gflops | |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 192 | 768 |
Texture fill rate | 12 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | |
Transistor count | 4,940 million | 3,100 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | IGP | IGP |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Memory |
||
Memory type | System Shared | DDR3 |
Memory bus width | 128 + 64 Bit | |
Shared memory | 0 | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Vulkan |