GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 and GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 280 outperforms GTX 570 Rev. 2 by a whopping 103% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 374 | 560 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.37 | 1.04 |
| Power efficiency | 4.95 | 2.23 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 280 has 416% better value for money than GTX 570 Rev. 2.
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 | 1792 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 219 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 43.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 112 | 60 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 152.0 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.27 | 7.03 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 7 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 219 Watt |
R9 280 has a 103% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 9.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
