AMD R9 380X Temperatures & Power Consumption
The R9 380X operates at 53C delta T over Ambient, measured once equilibrium is achieved. Comparatively, the R9 380 “Dual-X” (also from Sapphire) ran a few Celsius cooler, at 45C. These temperatures are totally contingent on the AIB, some of whom implement vastly superior cooling technologies than their competition – so to truly compare cross-brand models would require more cards than we've got access to. The GTX 960, generally, will perform cooler than the R9 380X, if for no other reason than lower power consumption.
Total system power consumption lands the R9 380X configuration at 300.8W, about 40W below the R9 390, ~29W more than the overclocked R9 380, and 40W more than the R9 380 stock. The ASUS GTX 960 we tested runs at about 216W, a marked 84.8W.
AMD R9 380X Overclocking Results
For overclocking, we configure the power percent target to its maximum value before adjusting voltage to its own corresponding outputs. We avoid maxing-out voltage where possible, as it eats into total TDP available to the card's clocks. We then slowly increment clockrate, observing for visual artifacting or catastrophic failures throughout the process. Each increment is left only for a few minutes before moving to the next step. We're eventually confronted with a driver failure, at which point the clockrate is backed-down, then endurance tested for 25 minutes using 3DMark Firestrike Extreme on loop.
With the R9 380X, we presently have no voltage control, and so left voltage untouched. The R9 380X allows 120% of base power to be supplied to the GPU for overclocking, utilized alongside the clock stepping shown below:
| AMD R9 380X Overclock Stepping - GamersNexus.net | ||||||
| CLK Offset | Max CLK | Mem Offset | Mem CLK | PWR Offset | Initial Test | Endurance? |
| 1040 | 1500 | Y | - | |||
| 50 | 1090 | 1500 | 20 | Y | - | |
| 80 | 1120 | 1500 | 20 | Y | - | |
| 105 | 1145 | 1500 | 20 | Y | - | |
| 105 | 1145 | 50 | 1550 | 20 | Y | - |
| 105 | 1145 | 75 | 1575 | 20 | Y | - |
| 120 | 1200 | 75 | 1575 | 20 | N | - |
| 105 | 1145 | 75 | 1575 | 20 | N | - |
| 90 | 1130 | 50 | 1550 | 20 | Y | N |
| 80 | 1120 | 50 | 1550 | 20 | Y | Y |
| 80 | 1120 | 75 | 1575 | 20 | Y | N |
| 85 | 1125 | 50 | 1550 | 20 | Y | Y |
We had to revisit a few CLK Offsets after spotty stability, eventually settling on +85MHz (1125MHz max) core clock and +50MHz memory offset (1550MHz).
AMD R9 380X Overclocking Benchmarks
The Witcher 3 sees a small FPS gain following the overclock, calculated-out as about 7.59%. Not bad, but certainly limited. That growth shrinks to 5% with Metro: Last Light and 4.7% with Shadow of Mordor.
Overclocking, as we said in the Fury X and R9 380/390 reviews, is simply not worth it. You get a ~7% clock OC, at best, and between 5% and 8% FPS boost. That comes down to a couple FPS, something that isn't worth the stability / longevity threat and increased heat output.
Conclusion
AMD's R9 380X is a card we feel confident in recommending. The 380X features known architecture, so it is a bit boring in that department, but the better-late driver stability improvements make the 380X a serious challenger to the 960. In this arena, the R9 380X wins-out in enough games – and sometimes by big margins, though generally closer to ~5-10% – that it's not another case of “AMD comes close.” No, with the 380X, AMD actually does beat the competition's pure FPS output in a number of games. Black Ops III shows the 960 4GB slightly ahead, but GTA V and the many others above do favor the 380X.
We've got to give nVidia credit where due, of course: The GTX 960 is still ~85W slimmer than the R9 380X, runs cooler, and does have better tools available to owners with GFE and ShadowPlay. AMD's Raptr Gaming Evolved software is, frankly, abysmal in its functionality, interface, and performance. We remove it on all AMD PCs we build. Speaking personally, I used to vehemently stand against GeForce Experience, too; I saw it as unnecessary bloat, of the mind that “I'll set my own settings like we did back in my time, gorrammit!” I still do that, since I can do a better job than GFE and enjoy the process of settings management, but the suite does have some useful tools for gamers. AMD's Radeon Software suite does look promising in this regard. It's certainly cleaner, but I'm hoping that the Gaming Evolved software gets a rework in the future.
Regardless, supporting, non-driver software often feels inconsequential to those seeking pure FPS, power, or overclocking advantages. If you want more OC headroom, the way to go is nVidia. 7% of max headroom isn't particularly exciting and hardly feels worth it. If you want thermals and power draw, go nVidia. If you want raw FPS out-of-box, it's looking like the 380X is a winner at the price-point. It's less impressive in some games, like those where the R9 380 is just a few percentage points behind the 380X, but the R9 380 tends to land at $200 to $220, depending on if you count rebates as a price reduction, so that's not a terrible difference toward the high-end of the spectrum.
There are valid reasons to buy both cards. The 380X does not invalidate the 960, but it does give buyers something to seriously think about. Some games, as we saw in GTA V and Shadow of Mordor, do see an actually-visible impact on framerate that favors the 380X.
AMD did good work on this one.
If you like our content, please consider supporting us through Patreon.
Editorial, Team Lead: Steve “Lelldorianx” Burke.
Additional Validation Testing: Mike “Budekai” Gaglione.
B-roll, Video Editing: Keegan “HornetSting” Gallick.
(Huge thanks to my team for helping me crunch this and the AC Syndicate content).
