Radeon Pro 460 vs R9 280

Place in the ranking	365	490
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.35	no data
Power efficiency	4.99	17.70
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Baffin
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	30 October 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024
Core clock speed	no data	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	907 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	58.05
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	1.858 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	64

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 size	no data	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	None

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	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	81.28 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
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. 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.

R9 280 14.45
+60.9%

Pro 460 8.98

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.

R9 280 5557
+61%

Pro 460 3452

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.

R9 280 8020
+75%

Pro 460 4584

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
+57.9%

−57.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.65

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Elden Ring	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

This is how R9 280 and Pro 460 compete in popular games:

R9 280 is 58% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.45	8.98
Recency	4 March 2014	30 October 2016
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	35 Watt

R9 280 has a 60.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro 460, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 471.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.