Radeon R9 280X vs GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB

Place in the ranking	218	350
Place by popularity	19	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	22.59	5.57
Power efficiency	14.23	4.16
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP106	Tahiti
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	18 August 2016 (8 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1060 3 GB has 306% better value for money than R9 280X.

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1152	2048
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1708 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	123.0	128.0
Floating-point processing power	3.935 TFLOPS	4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	72	128

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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	250 mm	275 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin

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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	2002 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	288 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1060 3 GB 24.89
+64.3%

R9 280X 15.15

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1060 3 GB 9588
+64.3%

R9 280X 5837

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:

Full HD	100−110 +56.3%	64 −56.3%
4K	50−55 +61.3%	31 −61.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	1.99	4.67
4K	3.98	9.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110 +0%	110 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how GTX 1060 3 GB and R9 280X compete in popular games:

GTX 1060 3 GB is 56% faster in 1080p
GTX 1060 3 GB is 61% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.89	15.15
Recency	18 August 2016	8 October 2013
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	250 Watt

GTX 1060 3 GB has a 64.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 108.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.