AMD Radeon R9 M380 vs AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M380 and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile and desktop graphics. The R9 M380 is a 2015-era mobile chip built on the aging GCN architecture, while the RX 5500 XT is a 2019 desktop part based on the modern RDNA design. The data reveals a generational chasm between the two, with the newer card dominating every benchmark metric, yet the older card still holds a specific niche due to its lower power footprint and different feature set. The benchmark results are not close; the RX 5500 XT is categorically faster, but the R9 M380’s role as a legacy mobile solution means it is not without a purpose in the current market.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT wins decisively in all measured performance categories. In the two shared benchmark tests, it outperforms the R9 M380 by staggering margins. Specifically, in Geekbench Metal, the RX 5500 XT scores 54,842 against the R9 M380’s 18,476, representing a 66.3% delta in favor of the newer card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the gap is even wider, with the RX 5500 XT scoring 46,965 versus 12,565, a 73.2% advantage. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete overhaul of compute capability.

The RX 5500 XT also wins on architectural features that matter for modern workloads. It supports DirectX 12_1, while the R9 M380 is limited to DirectX 12_0. The newer card offers Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the older card is capped at Vulkan 1.2.170. For users running contemporary games or compute applications that leverage these newer API features, the RX 5500 XT is the only viable choice. The R9 M380’s only theoretical advantage lies in its lower power characteristics—the data shows no TDP for the M380, implying it is a lower-power mobile part, whereas the RX 5500 XT has a 130 W TDP and requires a 300 W power supply. This makes the M380 suitable for legacy laptops where power draw is a constraint, though its performance is severely limited.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The R9 M380 is built on GCN 2.0 using a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. In contrast, the RX 5500 XT uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process, with 6,400 million transistors squeezed into a nearly identical 158 mm² die. This process shrink allows the RX 5500 XT to achieve a transistor density of 40.5M / mm², over three times the M380’s 13.0M / mm². The clock speeds reflect this: the RX 5500 XT boosts to 1845 MHz, while the M380 tops out at 1000 MHz.

The memory subsystems are also generations apart. The M380 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5500 XT also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s—more than double the bandwidth. The compute units scale accordingly: the RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the M380’s 768 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This results in dramatically higher theoretical throughput: the RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.39 TFLOPS FP16, while the M380 manages only 1.536 TFLOPS FP32 with no FP16 data listed.

The interface also differs. The RX 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which offers higher bandwidth than the M380’s PCIe 3.0 x16. This is particularly relevant for systems with modern CPUs that support PCIe 4.0, as it reduces potential bottlenecks. The RX 5500 XT also supports newer display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the M380’s outputs are not specified in the data. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is sparse but conclusive. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5500 XT scores 54,842, a 66.3% improvement over the R9 M380’s 18,476. This is the smaller of the two gaps, but it still places the RX 5500 XT in a completely different performance tier. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500 XT scores 46,965, which is 73.2% higher than the M380’s 12,565. The deltaPct values are negative from the M380’s perspective, confirming the older card trails in both tests.

Looking at the RX 5500 XT’s broader benchmark suite, it achieves an average benchmark score of 14,692, placing it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (avg score 14,747, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avg score 14,385, delta +2.1%). This indicates the RX 5500 XT sits just below the GTX 770 but above the integrated Vega 11. The R9 M380, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 15,521, ranking at the 58th percentile, with rivals like the GTX 1080 Ti (avg 15,548, delta -0.2%) and RTX 2060 (avg 15,290, delta +1.5%). The M380’s average is actually higher than the RX 5500 XT’s, but this is misleading—the M380 only has two benchmark scores (both Geekbench), while the RX 5500 XT has a wider range of tests, including Passmark scores that skew its average lower. The direct comparison on identical tests is the only valid metric, and there the RX 5500 XT dominates.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon R9 M380 faster than the RX 5500 XT in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), the RX 5500 XT wins both, with margins of 66.3% and 73.2% respectively. The M380 has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: Why does the R9 M380 have a higher average benchmark score than the RX 5500 XT?

A: The M380’s average score of 15,521 is based on only two Geekbench tests, both of which are relatively high for its era. The RX 5500 XT’s average of 14,692 includes a broader set of benchmarks, including lower Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 46 in DirectX 10), which drag down its average. On identical tests, the RX 5500 XT is far ahead.

Q: Can the R9 M380 support modern graphics APIs like DirectX 12_1?

A: No. The R9 M380 is limited to DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, which are required for many recent games and applications that use advanced rendering features.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 5500 XT has 224.0 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR6, while the R9 M380 has 96.00 GB/s using GDDR5. This is a 133% increase in bandwidth for the newer card, which is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: The data provides dimensions only for the RX 5500 XT, which is 180 mm (7.1 inches) long and dual-slot. The R9 M380 has no listed dimensions, as it is a mobile part. The RX 5500 XT also requires a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher clock speed?

A: The RX 5500 XT has a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost of 1845 MHz (with a game clock of 1717 MHz). The R9 M380 has a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz. The RX 5500 XT runs at nearly double the frequency.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is a vastly superior product. It wins every benchmark, offers newer API support, higher memory bandwidth, and a more advanced architecture. For any user seeking performance, the RX 5500 XT is the only choice between these two. Its 73.2% lead in OpenCL and 66.3% lead in Metal make it suitable for gaming, content creation, and compute tasks that would be impossible on the M380.

The R9 M380’s only justification is its legacy status. As a 2015 mobile chip with no listed TDP, it was designed for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency mattered more than raw speed. It still holds a 58th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which is respectable for its age, but its performance ceiling is low. The RX 5500 XT, despite being at the 57th percentile, achieves that rank with a much more diverse and demanding benchmark suite. If you are building a desktop system, the RX 5500 XT is the obvious pick. If you are repairing an old laptop, the M380 is the only option that fits, but you must accept its limitations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M380 | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 1607 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1845 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 1717 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 48 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.00 GPixel/s | 59.04 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.00 GTexel/s | 162.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.536 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | N/A | 130 W |

| Slot Width | N/A | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | N/A | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | N/A | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2019-12-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 169 USD |