Radeon R9 280 vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregated performance score
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 331 | 334 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.94 | 10.99 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (11 years old) | 4 March 2014 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $279 |
| Current price | $411 (0.4x MSRP) | $91 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 280 has 466% better value for money than GTX 690.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 1792 |
| CUDA cores | 3072 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 933 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 234 billion/sec | 104.5 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 3,130 gflops | 3,344 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 11.0" (27.9 cm) | 275 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| UVD | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Live | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| Mantle | no data | - |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 690 outperforms Radeon R9 280 by 1% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 690 outperforms Radeon R9 280 by 64% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 14.43 | 14.36 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 4 March 2014 |
| Cost | $999 | $279 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 200 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 690 and Radeon R9 280.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
