Radeon R9 280X vs HD 7950 |
Released October, 2013
Generic Radeon R9 280X
- 850 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
6.9 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!One memory chip remains uncooled, but its position is covered by the airflow the cooling assembly produces.
VS
Released January, 2012
AMD Radeon HD 7950
- 800 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
7 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 280X 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 | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Generic Radeon R9 280XGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark06 score | 28,452 | vs | 16,730 | More than 70% better 3DMark06 score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better PassMark score | 5,809 | vs | 4,764 | More than 20% better PassMark score | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | vs | 240 GB/s | 20% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 6,000 MHz | vs | 5,000 MHz | 20% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Much better manhattan score | 3,648.12 | vs | 1,857.58 | More than 95% better manhattan score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 4,096 GFLOPS | vs | 2,867.2 GFLOPS | Around 45% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 128 GTexel/s | vs | 89.6 GTexel/s | Around 45% higher texture rate | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 10,792 | vs | 9,290 | More than 15% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Better bitcoin mining score | 493.57 mHash/s | vs | 382.2 mHash/s | Around 30% better bitcoin mining score | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,500 MHz | vs | 1,250 MHz | 20% higher memory clock speed | |||
| More shading units | 2,048 | vs | 1,792 | 256 more shading units | |||
| More texture mapping units | 128 | vs | 112 | 16 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 3,677 | vs | 2,725 | Around 35% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Better sky diver factor score | 380.99 | vs | 355.06 | More than 5% better sky diver factor score | |||
| Slightly more compute units | 32 | vs | 28 | 4 more compute units | |||
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 31,710 | vs | 11,255 | More than 2.8x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Lower TDP | 200W | vs | 250W | 20% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 280X vs HD 7950
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection 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
Battlefield 4
Crysis 3
Reviews Word on the street
| Radeon R9 280X | vs | HD 7950 | ||
 | Radeon HD 7950 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
Read more
Comments
Showing 2 comments.
