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 270X |
Released March, 2014
AMD Radeon R9 280
- 827 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
6.9 Out of 10
by hassan-mujtaba (Oct, 2013)The memory for the overclocked models would be configured at 1600 MHz which is 6.4 GHz effective, pumping out 307.2 FB/s compared to the reference 288 GB/s..
VS
Released October, 2013
AMD Radeon R9 270X
- 1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.6 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!With a core clock of 1100 MHz, the GPU overclock isn't as large as on other cards, but the 25 MHz memory OC will help with performance.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 280 vs R9 270X 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 | |
| 6.9 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | vs | 179.2 GB/s | Around 35% higher memory bandwidth | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slightly better PassMark score | 5,311 | vs | 4,658 | Around 15% better PassMark score | |||
| More memory | 3,072 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 50% more memory | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 3,344 GFLOPS | vs | 2,688 GFLOPS | Around 25% better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly better PassMark direct compute score | 3,208 | vs | 1,062 | More than 3x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher texture rate | 104.5 GTexel/s | vs | 84 GTexel/s | Around 25% higher texture rate | |||
| More shading units | 1,792 | vs | 1,280 | 512 more shading units | |||
| More texture mapping units | 112 | vs | 80 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better ocean surface simulation score | 1,687.03 frames/s | vs | 1,298.8 frames/s | Around 30% better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Wider memory bus | 384 bit | vs | 256 bit | 50% wider memory bus | |||
| More compute units | 28 | vs | 20 | 8 more compute units | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1,000 MHz | vs | 827 MHz | More than 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,600 MHz | vs | 5,000 MHz | More than 10% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,050 MHz | vs | 933 MHz | Around 15% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,400 MHz | vs | 1,250 MHz | More than 10% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Slightly lower TDP | 180W | vs | 200W | 10% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 280 vs 270X
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
Dirt3
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
Read more
Comments
Showing 7 comments.
