Thermal Monoculars
Thermal Binoculars
Thermal Rifle Scopes
Thermal Clip-On Systems
Thermal Accessories
Digital Weapon Sights
Digital Clip-On Systems
Night Vision Monoculars
Night Vision Binoculars
Night Vision Goggles
Night Vision Weapon Sights
Night Vision Clip-On Systems
AGM Image intensifier Tubes
Night Vision Accessories
Fusion Imaging Monoculars
Fusion Imaging Binoculars
Laser Systems
IR Lights
Helmets & Mounts
Weapon Mounts
Miscellaneous
SKD Kits
PVS 14 Spare Parts
PVS 7 Spare Parts
This product is not exportable outside the United States.
By adding this item to cart, you agree and acknowledge the Export Policy and confirm that you are a person in the United States with no intentions to illegally export the device.
This product is not exportable outside the United States.
By adding this item to cart, you agree and acknowledge the Export Policy and confirm that you are a person in the United States with no intentions to illegally export the device.
For many users, choosing thermal imaging equipment is a chore, with the main challenge being comparing 384 vs. 640 thermal resolutions and finding the optimal option for each specific situation. But is it worth buying 640x512 models, which offer more features and are significantly more expensive, or should you stick with simpler, less costly, compact, and lightweight 384x288 equipment?
| Characteristics | 384 Thermal Resolution | 640 Thermal Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor | Thermal sensor with 384×288 pixels | Thermal sensor with 640×512 pixels |
| Pixels | 110,592 pixels | 327,680 pixels |
| Price | $1,500 – $3,000 | More than $3,500 |
| Detection | Up to 800 m (detection only); up to 250 m (detection & identification) | Up to 1,500 m (detection only); up to 600 m (detection & identification) |
One of the key aspects determining the effectiveness of thermal imaging equipment is image quality. It depends on many parameters, including pixel density. The 384 thermal sensor has a pixel density that's almost three times lower than the 640. However, this isn't a death sentence. Models with 384 thermal resolutions provide decent image quality, sufficient for most tasks. This means hunters, security guards, police officers, and other users can use them for specific purposes. A drawback of the 384 thermal sensor is its inability to render fine details. This somewhat limits its users. The 640 thermal sensor, however, doesn't have these issues. Its high pixel density ensures the most detailed images. Having 640 thermal clarity is perfect for leveling up your game when it comes to increasing your ability to positively identify your target at further distances.
Thermal imaging scopes can detect heat emitted by objects only at a certain distance. On average, the 384 thermal sensor has a detection range of 800 meters, while the 640-resolution sensor has a detection range of 1,500 meters. This range guarantees the detection of objects with temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius. However, target identification is only possible at 250 and 600 meters, respectively.
For a more accurate comparison of the detection ranges (640 vs 384), real-world examples of thermal-imaging scope use are needed, such as during hog/coyote hunting. In the former case, models with the 384 resolution will detect targets at 700 meters and identify them at 200 meters. When hunting coyotes, these ranges are 500 meters and 150 meters. Thermal imaging scopes with a 640 resolution will detect a coyote from 1,200 meters and identify it from 400 meters, and a hog from 1,400 meters and 500 meters, respectively. It is important to keep in mind that environmental factors like fog, snow, rain, humidity, and smoke play a huge role in identification and detection range capabilities. Thermal optics equipped with sensors that do a better job at detecting very small temperature variances tend to generally do better at cutting through environmental challenges.
The main reason for reluctance to upgrade from the 384 to the 640 is the significant price difference. Sometimes it's so substantial that you have to pay two to three times more for a thermal imager with a 640 resolution. However, it's not that simple. If you use the $/pixel metric (divide the device price by the number of pixels), you'll pay more per unit of information for the 384. This makes the 640 thermal price less expensive than it initially appears.
Battery life is another important criterion for comparing the 384 and 640. Because models with a 640 thermal resolution have more pixels, they consume battery power less sparingly, meaning they drain the battery faster. On average, the difference in battery life with a 384 thermal resolution is up to 20%. However, for modern devices that boast improved energy efficiency, the difference is no more than 10%. The power delivery systems built into AGM thermal optics are designed to accommodate those power consumption differences. The AGM Adder V2 series comes with an internal power system along with a swappable 18650 rechargeable battery. The Rattler V2 and Rattler V3 series come with a proprietary system capable of lasting much longer than a standard 18650 battery regardless of thermal resolution. Additionally, all of AGM's optics are also built to accommodate external power banks and charging systems to make your optic run even longer.
Thermal imaging scopes with 384 and 640 thermal resolutions are equally standard across various fields. Each has a specific role, depending on its features and capabilities. For example, the 384 is the best resolution for hunting in the woods, or tight fields, where shooting is almost always required at distances of 100–200 meters. 384 resolution optics are most commonly used for scenarios like hog hunting where you'll need to actively scan wide fields or wooded areas at closer ranges quickly. Meanwhile, the 640 is the optimal choice for predator hunting enthusiasts taking longer shots at smaller targets. It's indispensable in fields, steppes, and mountains. Furthermore, the 640 is suitable for guarding large areas, reconnaissance, tracking criminals, searching for missing persons, and other tasks where the ability to detect and positively identify targets from a distance is essential.
If you're unsure whether the 640 is worth it and whether you should buy this thermal imaging optic, consider the pros and cons of upgrading. Once you do this, you will have no doubts about the correctness of the decision you made.
Yes, if we consider this statement in terms of image quality, accuracy, and identification range. However, in terms of weight, battery life, and price, 640×480 is inferior to 384×288.
Under optimal conditions, the 384 scope can identify a hog at about 200 meters. It can detect it (without identifying it) from up to 700 meters away. Identification range can vary depending on the base magnification of the optic you're using along with environmental factors such as fog, humidity, smoke, etc.
Yes, more pixels put more strain on the processor, which means the battery drains faster. The difference in this regard compared to 384 pixels is 10%–20% (depending on the specific model).
Absolutely. At short distances, the 384 will perform just as well as the 640, delivering good image quality and incredible detail.
No. Using various software, you can only eliminate multiple defects, but you won't be able to increase the level of detail.
The thermal resolution upgrade from 384 to 640 is a decision everyone must make for themselves. It's the right choice if you want better image quality, accurate identification, and new optics options. However, if minimal weight, long battery life, and a low investment are your top priorities, upgrading might not be the best choice. Have you made your decision? Then head over to our website - you're sure to find what you're looking for there. Many of our customers who upgrade to a 640 resolution optic still keep their 384 resolution optics as a buddy scope or handheld, or to use as a backup option.
Modified: Feb 18, 2026 | 11:49 am
Table of contents