Winner
Radeon R9 280X
GPUBoss recommends the Radeon R9 280X based on its compute performance.
See full details Radeon R9 280X vs HD 7950 |
Released October, 2013
Generic Radeon R9 280X
- 850 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
7 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
7.4 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 | |
| 7.4 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | vs | 240 GB/s | 20% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better PassMark score | 5,809 | vs | 4,764 | More than 20% better PassMark score | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 6,000 MHz | vs | 5,000 MHz | 20% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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 | |||
| Slightly better fire strike factor score | 62.73 | vs | 57.91 | Around 10% better fire strike factor score | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly 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.
