Radeon RX Vega 9 vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon RX Vega 9, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 9 outperforms GTX 280M SLI by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 738 | 617 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | 25.55 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) |
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 | 256 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
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 size | large | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12_1 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 10−12
−80%
| 18
+80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−22.2%
|
22
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−28.6%
|
60−65
+28.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−48.3%
|
85−90
+48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−41.9%
|
40−45
+41.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
13
+30%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−28.6%
|
60−65
+28.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−41.9%
|
40−45
+41.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8
−25%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−28.6%
|
60−65
+28.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+100%
|
9
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−66.7%
|
40−45
+66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−78.8%
|
55−60
+78.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 280M SLI and RX Vega 9 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 9 is 80% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 280M SLI is 100% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 9 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- RX Vega 9 is ahead in 57 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.46 | 5.59 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
RX Vega 9 has a 61.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 9 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M SLI in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
