GeForce 9800 GTX+ vs Radeon R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X and GeForce 9800 GTX+, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 280X outperforms 9800 GTX+ by a whopping 1097% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 404 | 1101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.86 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 4.28 | 0.63 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | G92B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 16 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280X has 12050% better value for money than 9800 GTX+.
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 cores | 2048 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 141 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 47.23 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 0.47 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 64 KB |
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 |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 70.4 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 65
+1200%
| 5−6
−1200%
|
| 4K | 31
+1450%
| 2−3
−1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
+896%
| 45.80
−896%
|
| 4K | 9.65
+1087%
| 114.50
−1087%
|
- R9 280X has 896% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 1087% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1140%
|
5−6
−1140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+1217%
|
12−14
−1217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1222%
|
9−10
−1222%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1140%
|
5−6
−1140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+1106%
|
16−18
−1106%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+1200%
|
7−8
−1200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+1100%
|
5−6
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+1250%
|
4−5
−1250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1222%
|
9−10
−1222%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1140%
|
5−6
−1140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+1270%
|
10−11
−1270%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1222%
|
9−10
−1222%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+1225%
|
8−9
−1225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1220%
|
10−11
−1220%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+1117%
|
12−14
−1117%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1200%
|
6−7
−1200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 68
+1260%
|
5−6
−1260%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
This is how R9 280X and 9800 GTX+ compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 1200% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 1450% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.89 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 16 January 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 141 Watt |
R9 280X has a 1097.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
9800 GTX+, on the other hand, has 77.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX+ 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.
