GeForce GTX 680M SLI vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7870 XT HD 7950 HD 7950 Boost HD 7950 Mac Edition HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 HD 7970 HD 7970 GHz Edition HD 8950 OEM R9 280 R9 280X R9 280X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
660M 660M Mac Edition 670M 670MX 670MX SLI 675M 675M SLI 675MX 675MX Mac Edition 680M 680M SLI 680MX 680MX Mac Edition

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce GTX 680M SLI, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014, $279
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
13.23

680M SLI outperforms R9 280 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 280 R9 280
GTX 680M SLI GTX 680M SLI

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking432401
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.76no data
Power efficiency5.15no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTahitiN13E-GTX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (12 years ago)4 June 2012 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores17922688
Core clock speedno data720 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Wattno data
Texture fill rate104.5no data
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno data
SLI options-+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2x 4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit2x 256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz3600 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1211
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p110−120133
+20.9%
Full HD85−9098
+15.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.28no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 35−40 35−40
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Resident Evil 4 Remake 30−35 30−35

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 35−40 35−40
Battlefield 5 65−70 65−70
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Far Cry 5 50−55 50−55
Fortnite 85−90 85−90
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 60−65
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 35−40 35−40
Battlefield 5 65−70 65−70
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 229 229
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Dota 2 95−100 95−100
Far Cry 5 50−55 50−55
Fortnite 85−90 85−90
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 60−65
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60 55−60
Metro Exodus 30−35 30−35
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 40−45
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70 65−70
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Dota 2 95−100 95−100
Far Cry 5 50−55 50−55
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 60−65
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 40−45
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 85−90 85−90

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33 30−33
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120 110−120
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 24−27
Metro Exodus 18−20 18−20
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 140−150 140−150

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 40−45
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 14−16
Far Cry 5 30−35 30−35
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 35−40
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 21−24

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−35 30−35

4K
High

Atomic Heart 12−14 12−14
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 12−14
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 27−30
Metro Exodus 12−14 12−14
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 21−24
Valorant 75−80 75−80

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 21−24
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 12−14
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 6−7
Dota 2 55−60 55−60
Far Cry 5 16−18 16−18
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 27−30
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16 14−16

4K
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 14−16

This is how R9 280 and GTX 680M SLI compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680M SLI is 21% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680M SLI is 15% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.23 15.03
Recency 4 March 2014 4 June 2012

R9 280 has an age advantage of 1 year.

GTX 680M SLI, on the other hand, has a 14% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 690 GeForce GTX 690
GTX 680M SLI GeForce GTX 680M SLI
vs
RX 5500M Radeon RX 5500M
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 760 Ti OEM GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 675MX GeForce GTX 675MX
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 675M GeForce GTX 675M
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 580M GeForce GTX 580M
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4000
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD 6310 Radeon HD 6310
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 675M SLI GeForce GTX 675M SLI
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
Quadro M620 Quadro M620
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GT 320M GeForce GT 320M
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 275 GeForce GTX 275
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
Iris Plus Graphics 655 Iris Plus Graphics 655

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 445 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or GeForce GTX 680M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.