Radeon R9 380 vs R9 280

Place in the ranking	362	341
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.44	9.20
Power efficiency	4.99	5.77
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Antigua
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	reference
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 380 has 69% better value for money than R9 280.

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	1792
Compute units	no data	28
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	970 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	108.6
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	3.476 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	112

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	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	275 mm	221 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Form factor	no data	full height / full length / dual slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	2 x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	-	+

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	-
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	970 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	182.4 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	+
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	+	+
HD3D	+	+
LiquidVR	+	+
PowerTune	-	+
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	+
ZeroCore	-	+
UVD	+	-
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	+
Mantle	-	+

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 14.46

R9 380 15.89
+9.9%

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 5559

R9 380 6111
+9.9%

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

R9 380 8218
+2.5%

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	55−60 −18.2%	65 +18.2%
4K	24−27 −12.5%	27 +12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.07 −65.7%	3.06 +65.7%
4K	11.63 −57.7%	7.37 +57.7%

R9 380 has 66% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 380 has 58% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +0%	52 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how R9 280 and R9 380 compete in popular games:

R9 380 is 18% faster in 1080p
R9 380 is 13% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.46	15.89
Recency	4 March 2014	18 June 2015
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	190 Watt

R9 380 has a 9.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 5.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 280 and Radeon R9 380.

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