ATI Radeon 9800 PRO vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	352	1421
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.51	no data
Power efficiency	4.19	0.22
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Rage 8 (2002−2007)
GPU code name	Tahiti	R350
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	1 March 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X and ATI 9800 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.

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	no data
Core clock speed	no data	380 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	117 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	47 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	3.040
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	128	8

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	AGP 8x
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	1x Molex

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	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	128 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	340 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	21.76 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	9.0 (9_0)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	2.0
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	+	N/A

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 280X 15.18
+10020%

ATI 9800 PRO 0.15

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 280X 5837
+9793%

ATI 9800 PRO 59

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	64	0−1
4K	33	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67	no data
4K	9.06	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33	0−1
Elden Ring	45−50	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40	0−1
Valorant	60−65	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33	0−1
Dota 2	36	0−1
Elden Ring	45−50	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Fortnite	80−85	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	54	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +10800%	1−2 −10800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52	0−1
Valorant	60−65	0−1
World of Tanks	190−200 +19400%	1−2 −19400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33	0−1
Dota 2	137 +13600%	1−2 −13600%
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +10800%	1−2 −10800%
Valorant	60−65	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24	0−1
Elden Ring	24−27	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +13600%	1−2 −13600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +10500%	1−2 −10500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	35−40	0−1
Metro Exodus	30−35	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20	0−1
Valorant	35−40	0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Dota 2	24−27	0−1
Elden Ring	10−11	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27	0−1
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	68	0−1
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Valorant	16−18	0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.18	0.15
Recency	8 October 2013	1 March 2003
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	128 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	47 Watt

R9 280X has a 10020% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9800 PRO, on the other hand, has 431.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 PRO in performance tests.

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