GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 280X vs R9 280 among Desktop GPUs


Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more


T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more


Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more


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?

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 280X

Reasons to consider the
Generic Radeon R9 280X

Report a correction
Higher effective memory clock speed 6,000 MHz vs 5,000 MHz 20% higher effective memory clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 933 MHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Higher memory clock speed 1,500 MHz vs 1,250 MHz 20% higher memory clock speed
Better sky diver factor score 384.36 vs 338.86 Around 15% better sky diver factor score
Better PassMark direct compute score 3,387 vs 2,845 Around 20% better PassMark direct compute score
Front view of Radeon R9 280

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon R9 280

Report a correction
Lower TDP 200W vs 250W 20% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 280X vs 280

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
484.77 mHash/s
Radeon R9 280
416.55 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
87.88 mPixels/s
Radeon R9 280
79.45 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
1,886.92 frames/s
Radeon R9 280
1,630.98 frames/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Read more


Showing 17 comments.
How well would these perform with an athlon x4 860k? Any bottlenecking from the CPU?
Haha. You made my day xD
I got 280 and it`s bang for the buck ... run same like 280x and almost like 290 , and way cheaper then 290
damn in my country R9 280x and R9 280 are 10 dollar diff
Yup, with that much money better spending a bit more on a R9 290
just bought a 280 and overclocked it. it doesnt worth paying more for x.
Why do other sites list the compute power at 3.34 TFLOPS? So does Wiki for the same architecture? I believe most follow the formula of (2 x shader count) x (clock speed) which unboosted would give the card 3,046,400 Single precision floating point operations per second, and boosted to the 940MHz clock 3,368,960 FLOPS. Is this formula flawed?
R9 280 is good enough to run every game on High / Ultra with no problems, so there is no real reason to go for 280X as it's way more expensive but the difference is minimal
Which one should i buy? The r9 280 is good but the r9 280x has more gflops, I will use this graphics card for gaming so which one would you guys recommend
i think he was ironistic and he's pretty funny too
grab a newer fx chip like a 6300 and your frrame rate may almost double i myself went from a athlon iix2 255 dual core to a fx6300 and my fps tripled on bf3 and 4
doesnt worth the 80 dollar diff
well if u are going to buy 280x just to be like your friend, u are pretty stupid i guess ...
Yeah but that X looks sooo cool. Say your friend has a 280 and is like "OMG, I GOT a 280 today!!" then you say "Yeah, well I got a fuckin 280X...TAKE THAT"
Yhea, I have a athlon ii 4x 630 from 2008 and it's clocked to 3GHz and 4gb ram and I run pretty good at battlefield 4 high at 50 frames
Hi, i want to buy the R9 280 but i got pci 2.0 and cpu i7 920 with 6gb ram (tripple channel) is it worth or there would be a lot of bottleneck?
Considering the 280x costs 300€ and the 280 200€, there is no real advantage going with the first :P
comments powered by Disqus