NVIDIA
GeForce GTS 150 vs Radeon R9 380
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R9 380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GTS 150 and R9 380 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R9 380 outperforms GTS 150 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Equal catalog scores
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider GTS 150
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider R9 380
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3134
7360
100100
4356
Graphics card ranking
Positions 244–249of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GTS 150
114 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
31
34Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
29
31Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
26
28Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
73Better
60
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
46
46
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
USB Type-C
Power consumptionBetter
DirectX
Max monitors
Max resolution
Recommended PSU
Length
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Architecture
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Thickness
Compute API
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory bus
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Transistor countBetter
Vulkan
DisplayPort
Upscaling
HDMI
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares GTS 150 and R9 380 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
GTS 150R9 380
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
152 FPS
176 FPS
1080p Ultra
107 FPS
120 FPS
1440p Ultra
60 FPS
65 FPS
4K Ultra
23 FPS
24 FPS
Counter-Strike 2GTS 150152 FPSR9 380176 FPSGTS 150107 FPSR9 380120 FPSGTS 15060 FPSR9 38065 FPSGTS 15023 FPSR9 38024 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077GTS 15098 FPSR9 380113 FPSGTS 15085 FPSR9 38095 FPSGTS 15043 FPSR9 38047 FPSGTS 15015 FPSR9 38016 FPS
Forza Horizon 5GTS 150124 FPSR9 380143 FPSGTS 15080 FPSR9 38090 FPSGTS 15054 FPSR9 38059 FPSGTS 15033 FPSR9 38035 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyGTS 15080 FPSR9 38093 FPSGTS 15067 FPSR9 38075 FPSGTS 15039 FPSR9 38042 FPSGTS 15015 FPSR9 38016 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10031349%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100323714%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100344016%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100435626%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 100736020%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100364420%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100364318%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100344016%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100384619%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100354013%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.0
VulkanNot supported1.2
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaGCN 3.0
Process node65 nm28 nmBetter
Release date20092015
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count505 million5000 millionBetter
Die size240 mm²Better366 mm²
Shader units / cores641792Better
Base clock738 MHz970 MHzBetter
Boost clock738 MHz970 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 3x16
LengthVaries by board221 mm
ThicknessIGPDual-slot
Recommended PSUVaries by board450 W
Power connector6+6 pin6+6 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitorsVaries by board4
Max resolutionVaries by board4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM1 GB GDDR32 GB GDDR5Better
Memory typeGDDR3GDDR5
Memory bus256 bit256 bit
TFLOPS0.1283.476Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (4)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: GTS 150 or R9 380?+
GTS 150 has the higher overall gaming score, while GTS 150 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GTS 150 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GTS 150 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
GTS 150 offers more overall performance, while GTS 150 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GTS 150 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
GTS 150 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
GTS 150 leads in combined 1440p performance. GTS 150 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
GTS 150 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GTS 150 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GTS 150 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to GTS 150 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.