Winner
AMD Radeon R9 280
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R9 280 based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details Radeon R9 280 vs HD 7950 |
Released March, 2014
AMD Radeon R9 280
- 827 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
6.9 Out of 10
by hassan-mujtaba (Oct, 2013)The GPU core clock is maintained at 1000 MHz and the boost clock is configured at 1050 MHz.
VS
Released January, 2012
AMD Radeon HD 7950
- 800 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
7.8 Out of 10
by techPowerUp! (Jan, 2012)Thanks to PowerColor's dual fan cooler the card is a lot quieter than the AMD reference design, and runs cooler too - pretty impressive!
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 280 vs 7950 among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.8 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
AMD Radeon R9 280GPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Slightly better PassMark score | 5,313 | vs | 4,764 | More than 10% better PassMark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slightly better floating-point performance | 3,344 GFLOPS | vs | 2,867.2 GFLOPS | More than 15% better floating-point performance | |||
| Slightly higher texture rate | 104.5 GTexel/s | vs | 89.6 GTexel/s | More than 15% higher texture rate | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 29.86 GPixel/s | vs | 25.6 GPixel/s | More than 15% higher pixel rate | |||
| Slightly better PassMark direct compute score | 3,210 | vs | 2,725 | Around 20% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Slightly better ocean surface simulation score | 1,695.48 frames/s | vs | 1,618.55 frames/s | Around 5% better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| |||||||
| Slightly better fire strike factor score | 57.61 | vs | 54.91 | Around 5% better fire strike factor score | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 280 vs HD 7950
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| R9 280 vs R9 280X | ||
| | VS |  |
| R9 280 vs 960 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R9 280 vs 760 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R9 280 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| 7950 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 7950 vs 760 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $252 | ||
| 7950 vs 1060 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| | VS | |
| $252 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| 1050 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS |  |
| 1080 vs 1080 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 960 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| $252 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
 | VS | |
| RX 460 vs 1050 | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 4 comments.
