Radeon R9 280X vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 and Radeon R9 280X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 280X outperforms GTX 690 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 376 | 361 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.47 | 5.53 |
| Power efficiency | 3.26 | 4.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 280X has 276% better value for money than GTX 690.
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 | 3072 ×2 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 130.4 ×2 | 128.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 | 4.096 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 275 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×2 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s ×2 | 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | + |
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 | + |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 60−65
−8.3%
| 65
+8.3%
|
| 4K | 27−30
−14.8%
| 31
+14.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.65
−262%
| 4.60
+262%
|
| 4K | 37.00
−284%
| 9.65
+284%
|
- R9 280X has 262% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 284% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+0%
|
158
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GTX 690 and R9 280X compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 8% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 15% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.11 | 15.00 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 690 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R9 280X, on the other hand, has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 20% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 690 and Radeon R9 280X.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
