G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Radeon R9 390X

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $571 less on MSRP ($429 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 140.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 21.6 vs 9.0 G3D/$ ($429 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌64.9% longer card at 277mm vs 168mm.

Tesla P4

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 277mm, a 109mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 16nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
133.1% HIGHER MSRP
$1,000 MSRPvs$429 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 9.0 vs 21.6 G3D/$ ($1,000 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).

Radeon R9 390X

2015

Tesla P4

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $571 less on MSRP ($429 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 140.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 21.6 vs 9.0 G3D/$ ($429 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Why buy it

✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 277mm, a 109mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 16nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌64.9% longer card at 277mm vs 168mm.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
133.1% HIGHER MSRP
$1,000 MSRPvs$429 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 9.0 vs 21.6 G3D/$ ($1,000 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 390X better than Tesla P4?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 9,278 vs 9,004 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 390X is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon R9 390X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 8 GB instead of 4 GB and better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon R9 390X can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $429 MSRP. Radeon R9 390X is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon R9 390X is about $571 cheaper on MSRP at $429 MSRP versus $1,000 MSRP, and you are getting 3.0% higher G3D Mark. Tesla P4 is the newer 2016 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture and lower power draw (75W vs 275W) than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Tesla P4 make more sense than Radeon R9 390X?

Yes. Tesla P4 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 275W), and staying closer to $1,000 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 390X. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 390X currently gives you 3.0% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 140.2%.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon R9 390X Benchmark Check

Tesla P4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
1080p
low	105 FPS	103 FPS
medium	89 FPS	89 FPS
high	73 FPS	72 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	43 FPS
1440p
low	89 FPS	90 FPS
medium	75 FPS	79 FPS
high	55 FPS	57 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	33 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	28 FPS
medium	32 FPS	27 FPS
high	20 FPS	18 FPS
ultra	17 FPS	15 FPS

Open Radeon R9 390X Open Tesla P4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
1080p
low	187 FPS	219 FPS
medium	165 FPS	177 FPS
high	137 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	109 FPS
1440p
low	131 FPS	159 FPS
medium	106 FPS	128 FPS
high	85 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	65 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	60 FPS	92 FPS
medium	50 FPS	73 FPS
high	45 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	45 FPS

Open Radeon R9 390X Open Tesla P4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
1080p
low	418 FPS	405 FPS
medium	334 FPS	324 FPS
high	278 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	313 FPS	304 FPS
medium	251 FPS	243 FPS
high	209 FPS	203 FPS
ultra	157 FPS	152 FPS
4K
low	209 FPS	203 FPS
medium	167 FPS	162 FPS
high	139 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	104 FPS	101 FPS

Open Radeon R9 390X Open Tesla P4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
1080p
low	230 FPS	193 FPS
medium	199 FPS	159 FPS
high	160 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	136 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	171 FPS	134 FPS
medium	148 FPS	114 FPS
high	115 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	94 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	80 FPS
medium	78 FPS	64 FPS
high	62 FPS	52 FPS
ultra	48 FPS	38 FPS

Open Radeon R9 390X Open Tesla P4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 390X and Tesla P4

Radeon R9 390X

The Radeon R9 390X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,278 points. Launch price was $429.

Tesla P4

The Tesla P4 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 13 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 886 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,004 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 390X scores 9,278 and the Tesla P4 reaches 9,004 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 390X is built on GCN 2.0 while the Tesla P4 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 2,816 (Radeon R9 390X) vs 2,560 (Tesla P4). Raw compute: 5.914 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 390X) vs 5.704 TFLOPS (Tesla P4). Boost clocks: 1050 MHz vs 1114 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
G3D Mark Score	9,278+3%	9,004
Architecture	GCN 2.0	Pascal
Process Node	28 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	2816+10%	2560
Compute (TFLOPS)	5.914 TFLOPS+4%	5.704 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1050 MHz	1114 MHz+6%
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	176+10%	160
L1 Cache	704 KB	960 KB+36%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
Upscaling Tech	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon R9 390X comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla P4 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 390X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 512-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 390X) vs 2 MB (Tesla P4) — the Tesla P4 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
VRAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	512-bit+100%	256-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon R9 390X) vs 12.1 (Tesla P4). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
DirectX	12 (12_0)	12.1
Vulkan	1.2	1.4+17%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 390X) vs NVENC 6.0 (Tesla P4). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R9 390X) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP8,VP9 (Tesla P4).

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
Encoder	VCE 2.0	NVENC 6.0
Decoder	UVD 4.2	PureVideo HD VP6
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 390X draws 275W versus the Tesla P4's 75W — a 114.3% difference. The Tesla P4 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 750W (Radeon R9 390X) vs 500W (Tesla P4). Power connectors: 6-pin + 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 277mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75°C.

Feature	Radeon R9 390X	Tesla P4
TDP	275W	75W-73%
Recommended PSU	750W	500W-33%
Power Connector	6-pin + 8-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	277mm	168mm
Height	129mm	53mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	80	75°C-6%
Perf/Watt	33.7	120.1+256%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 390X launched at $429 MSRP, while the Tesla P4 launched at $1000. The Radeon R9 390X costs 57.1% less ($571 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 21.6 (Radeon R9 390X) vs 9.0 (Tesla P4) — the Radeon R9 390X offers 140% better value. The Tesla P4 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).