Radeon R9 280X vs Pro W5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 with Radeon R9 280X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700 outperforms R9 280X by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 124 | 359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 46.67 | 5.47 |
| Power efficiency | 12.89 | 4.17 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 19 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro W5700 has 753% 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 | 2304 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1243 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1930 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.9 | 128.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.893 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 305 mm | 275 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 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 | 5x mini-DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
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.
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 | 160−170
+146%
| 65
−146%
|
| 4K | 75−80
+142%
| 31
−142%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.99
−8.6%
| 4.60
+8.6%
|
| 4K | 10.65
−10.5%
| 9.65
+10.5%
|
- R9 280X has 9% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 10% 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 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+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 Pro W5700 and R9 280X compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700 is 146% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5700 is 142% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.64 | 14.83 |
| Recency | 19 November 2019 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 250 Watt |
Pro W5700 has a 153.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 22% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 280X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
