Radeon R9 280X vs GeForce GTX 980

Place in the ranking	193	350
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	10.88	5.43
Power efficiency	12.16	4.22
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GM204	Tahiti
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	19 September 2014 (10 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 has 100% 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	2048	2048
Core clock speed	1064 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1216 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	155.6	128.0
Floating-point processing power	4.981 TFLOPS	4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	128	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	267 mm	275 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	3 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	no data
Memory bandwidth	224 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort support	-	+
G-SYNC 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	+
GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-

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	4.5	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. 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 980 28.78
+90.2%

R9 280X 15.13

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 980 11103
+90.2%

R9 280X 5837

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 980 17605
+63.1%

R9 280X 10792

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.

GTX 980 37997
+15%

R9 280X 33045

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.

GTX 980 12938
+55.1%

R9 280X 8343

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 85374
+63.8%

R9 280X 52117

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 323076
+13.2%

R9 280X 285376

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 980 130
+36.2%

R9 280X 95

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

GTX 980 1889
+85.7%

R9 280X 1017

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	91 +40%	65 −40%
1440p	50 +108%	24−27 −108%
4K	39 +21.9%	32 −21.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.03	4.60
1440p	10.98	12.46
4K	14.08	9.34

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

45−50
+100%

24−27

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	69 +103%	30−35 −103%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	45−50 +96%	24−27 −96%
Battlefield 5	86 +75.5%	45−50 −75.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55−60 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Far Cry 5	84 +140%	35−40 −140%
Far Cry New Dawn	77 +87.8%	40−45 −87.8%
Forza Horizon 4	253 +158%	95−100 −158%
Hitman 3	55−60 +103%	27−30 −103%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +67.5%	75−80 −67.5%
Metro Exodus	95−100 +92.2%	50−55 −92.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	70−75 +78%	40−45 −78%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130 +165%	45−50 −165%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +42.3%	75−80 −42.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	83 +144%	30−35 −144%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	45−50 +96%	24−27 −96%
Battlefield 5	74 +51%	45−50 −51%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55−60 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Far Cry 5	69 +97.1%	35−40 −97.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	64 +56.1%	40−45 −56.1%
Forza Horizon 4	230 +135%	95−100 −135%
Hitman 3	55−60 +103%	27−30 −103%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +67.5%	75−80 −67.5%
Metro Exodus	95−100 +92.2%	50−55 −92.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	70−75 +78%	40−45 −78%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−105 +104%	45−50 −104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	132 +20%	110 −20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +42.3%	75−80 −42.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35 +2.9%	30−35 −2.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	45−50 +96%	24−27 −96%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55−60 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Far Cry 5	50 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	59 −66.1%	95−100 +66.1%
Hitman 3	55−60 +103%	27−30 −103%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +67.5%	75−80 −67.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−105 +104%	45−50 −104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 +130%	20 −130%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +42.3%	75−80 −42.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

70−75
+78%

40−45

−78%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +62.1%	27−30 −62.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	44 +91.3%	21−24 −91.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27 +80%	14−16 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30 +142%	12−14 −142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Far Cry 5	33 +94.1%	16−18 −94.1%
Forza Horizon 4	147 +86.1%	75−80 −86.1%
Hitman 3	35−40 +94.4%	18−20 −94.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +93.5%	30−35 −93.5%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 +141%	27−30 −141%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Watch Dogs: Legion	150−160 +68.8%	90−95 −68.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50
+96%

24−27

−96%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	22 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +118%	10−12 −118%
Hitman 3	21−24 +109%	10−12 −109%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +90.8%	75−80 −90.8%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +127%	14−16 −127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 +107%	14−16 −107%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	34 +70%	20−22 −70%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +147%	14−16 −147%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
+78.6%

14−16

−78.6%

This is how GTX 980 and R9 280X compete in popular games:

GTX 980 is 40% faster in 1080p
GTX 980 is 108% faster in 1440p
GTX 980 is 22% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980 is 300% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 66% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 980 is ahead in 71 test (99%)
R9 280X is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.78	15.13
Recency	19 September 2014	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	250 Watt

GTX 980 has a 90.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 51.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 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.