ATI Radeon HD 3850 vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	353	1107
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.60	0.04
Power efficiency	4.19	0.94
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	Tahiti	RV670
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	19 November 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X has 13900% better value for money than ATI HD 3850.

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	320
Core clock speed	no data	668 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	666 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	10.69
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	0.4275 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	16

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	208 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	1x 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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	830 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	53.12 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, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 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	10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
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 15.19
+1389%

ATI HD 3850 1.02

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
+1389%

ATI HD 3850 392

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 +1500%	4−5 −1500%
4K	33 +1550%	2−3 −1550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67 +858%	44.75 −858%
4K	9.06 +888%	89.50 −888%

R9 280X has 858% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 280X has 888% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Valorant	60−65 +1425%	4−5 −1425%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Dota 2	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Fortnite	80−85 +1580%	5−6 −1580%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1457%	7−8 −1457%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Valorant	60−65 +1425%	4−5 −1425%
World of Tanks	190−200 +1525%	12−14 −1525%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Dota 2	137 +1422%	9−10 −1422%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1457%	7−8 −1457%
Valorant	60−65 +1425%	4−5 −1425%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +1422%	9−10 −1422%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +1414%	7−8 −1414%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Valorant	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Dota 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

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 +1600%	4−5 −1600%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Fortnite	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14	0−1
Valorant	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%

This is how R9 280X and ATI HD 3850 compete in popular games:

R9 280X is 1500% faster in 1080p
R9 280X is 1550% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.19	1.02
Recency	8 October 2013	19 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt

R9 280X has a 1389.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 3850, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.

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