GeForce 9800M GTX SLI vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7870 XT HD 7950 HD 7950 Boost HD 7950 Mac Edition HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7970 HD 7970 GHz Edition HD 8950 OEM HD 8970 OEM R9 280 R9 280X R9 280X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
9800M GT 9800M GTS 9800M GT SLI 9800M GTS SLI 9800M GTX 9800M GTX SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce 9800M GTX SLI, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014, $279
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
13.22
+362%

R9 280 outperforms 9800M SLI by a whopping 362% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 280 R9 280
9800M GTX SLI 9800M GTX SLI

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking419829
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.68no data
Power efficiency5.081.47
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameTahitiNB9E-GTX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (11 years ago)15 July 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1792224
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million3016 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate104.5no data
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KBno data

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1210
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.22 2.86
Recency 4 March 2014 15 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 150 Watt

R9 280 has a 362.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

9800M GTX SLI, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R9 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 690 GeForce GTX 690
9800M GTX SLI GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
vs
HD Graphics 630 HD Graphics 630
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD 7990 Radeon HD 7990
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 7950 Monica BIOS 2
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
R7 M270DX M270DX
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
R7 M260DX M260DX
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
R8 M535DX M535DX
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
RTX 5000 Ada Generation 5000 Ada Generation
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
7950 GT AGP 7950 GT AGP
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
7900 GX2 7900 GX2
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 4000 Ada Generation
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
Apple M3 Max 30-Core GPU 30-Core GPU
R7 250X AMD R7 250X
vs
Tesla C2070 C2070

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 443 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 13 votes

Rate GeForce 9800M GTX SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or GeForce 9800M GTX SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.