GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 280X vs 970 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

7.3

Overall Score

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970  based on its benchmarks, compute performance and noise and power.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 280X

Reasons to consider the
Generic Radeon R9 280X

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 score 28,452 vs 15,071 Around 90% better 3DMark06 score
Higher memory bandwidth 288 GB/s vs 224.4 GB/s Around 30% higher memory bandwidth
Better floating-point performance 4,096 GFLOPS vs 3,494 GFLOPS More than 15% better floating-point performance
Higher texture rate 128 GTexel/s vs 109.2 GTexel/s More than 15% higher texture rate
Wider memory bus 384 bit vs 256 bit 50% wider memory bus
More shading units 2,048 vs 1,664 384 more shading units
More texture mapping units 128 vs 104 24 more texture mapping units
Front view of GeForce GTX 970

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970

Report a correction
Significantly better PassMark score 8,563 vs 5,809 More than 45% better PassMark score
Higher clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 850 MHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Higher effective memory clock speed 7,012 MHz vs 6,000 MHz More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed
Higher pixel rate 58.8 GPixel/s vs 32 GPixel/s Around 85% higher pixel rate
Much better manhattan score 3,719.68 vs 2,397.3 More than 55% better manhattan score
More memory 4,096 MB vs 3,072 MB Around 35% more memory
Much higher crysis 3 framerate 50.6 fps vs 13.1 fps More than 3.8x higher crysis 3 framerate
Significantly more render output processors 56 vs 32 24 more render output processors
Significantly better particle simulation score 1,017.19 mInteraction/s vs 569.94 mInteraction/s Around 80% better particle simulation score
Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate 107.6 fps vs 73.9 fps More than 45% higher BioShock infinite framerate
Significantly higher battlefield 4 framerate 88.6 vs 39.9 Around 2.2x higher battlefield 4 framerate
Higher turbo clock speed 1,178 MHz vs 1,000 MHz Around 20% higher turbo clock speed
Better fire strike factor score 72.7 vs 62.73 More than 15% better fire strike factor score
Higher memory clock speed 1,753 MHz vs 1,500 MHz More than 15% higher memory clock speed
Better PassMark direct compute score 4,375 vs 3,677 Around 20% better PassMark direct compute score
Significantly lower TDP 148W vs 250W More than 40% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 280X vs GeForce GTX 970

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
468.39 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 970
212.23 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
89.19 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 970
105.11 mPixels/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
3,355.56
GeForce GTX 970
3,359.92

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
2,397.3
GeForce GTX 970
3,719.68

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Battlefield 4

Reviews Word on the street

Radeon R9 280X  vs GeForce GTX 970 

8.5
9.7
Today, we're reviewing the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SuperClocked ACX, a non-reference design, factory-overclocked GTX 970 graphics card, which comes with a custom-design PCB, and the company's signature ACX cooler, which features an aluminium stack heatsink that uses a trio of copper heat pipes, to draw heat directly from the GPU die, and dissipate it under the airflow of two 80 mm fans.
GeForce GTX 970

Read more

Comments

Showing 24 comments.
One again... if the r9 280x is recommended, and it beats the 970 in so many important specs, than why is the 970 getting SOO much better FPS? why is it better?
What CPU and RAM mgz, PSU wattage, and CPU cooler are you using? These are all factors on performance. You could put a 970 or an R9 in an Intel I3 4160 with 8 GB 1700 mhz running from a mediocre motherboard and this card won't have the proper support to run well. If you want performance from any of these cards, do your homework... find out what support they need to run like they were meant to and build a system to get the best from every part you put in it... Stop bitching until you do your homework! You are showing how young and lazy you really are!
Michael's correct-- wrong comparison. But you ARE correct in that GPUboss almost never shows more than one or two game benchmark comparisons, and the ones they choose generally favor Nvidia cards. Sad. Don't trust this terrible site; I only come here to laugh every now and then.
Agreed.
Into shit, they still dominate, infact they are cheaper now than they have ever been, they are mostly more quiet and they are much more power effcient, they have driver support the day before games come out and games devs tend to favour nvidia, that's why you see much better FPS for Nvidia over AMD even when the hardware specs are sim. But hey "neutral" enjoy AMD and it's ever lagging behind drivers, terrible support and overall shit experience, least it'll be cheaper... wait no it won't becaues the energy costs mark that shit up, bigger psu, more power costs, more noise... enjoy :S
True, but it's more so related to most games being held hostage by Nvidia so to speak. It's nearing peasantry and Nvidia is known for that kind of crap, which is the only thing keeping me from buying a Nvidia card. Hopefully that will change, but with things like GameWorks and purposely sabotaging AMD cards on Fallout 4 with unnecessary tessellation, it's hard to justify supporting Nvidia atm. They're still killing the industry while AMD continues to support it.
Not 3.5GB its 4GB but the last 500MB isnt as fast as the other 3.5GB
You might of not noticed. But the video you posted compared the Gtx 960 to the R9 280x not the gtx 970.
Battlefield 4 is missing, in that game R9 280X is above 970, same in Far Cry 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor and in Unigine Heaven score is very close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDhu5zLVLU0.
This is to shitty... too much shit against too less shit? What kind of shitty shit is this 970?
Don't understand nothing... I'm brazilian and the subtitle in the youtube don't be a translate so good...have you to try show me what RAM don't make up in the system ?
Who buys a 850mhz R9 280X...lol. Try comparing the 970 against the R9 280x @ 1100 Mhz...which is the only one smart people would buy. The results look much much different then...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYSG7gWfRTA
how to compare CPU with 8Gb Ram vs CPU 16 Gb Ram ?
Not fair. My 280x has 1070/1600. Include that GPU please.
That's not possible, the issue with the vram is that the 970 has one less L2 cache module than the 980. That is a physical difference in the cards not a software difference.
An update is expected to resolve memory performance to 4GB
lol Nvidia go slowly but surely into shit
3.5gb fast ram and 512mb slower ram, the new drivers disables using the slow ram in game which makes sure slow down seen in JUST ONE game modor on the HIGHEST possible settings in high res... lol but yeah for the price is craps on anything there is price per formance right now.
GTX970@ 3,5GB*
lololo
shit happens
thats maxwell for you less shit doing more
I like the 970 but even shit's very fast and efficient, the raw specs were pretty nerfed compared to previous high-end cards. Seriously 256-bit memory bus, less than 2000 CUDA cores (shading units) and only 104 texture mapping units? The card would be could at current gen titles but how about the next gen at ultra settings?
comments powered by Disqus