Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	352	147
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.51	no data
Power efficiency	4.18	9.57
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Vega 10
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	19 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	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	2048	4096
Core clock speed	no data	1250 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	375.8
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	12.03 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	128	256

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 3.0 x16
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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	512.0 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	No outputs
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	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.1.125

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

Pro Vega 64X 34.77
+129%

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

Pro Vega 64X 13369
+129%

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 −119%	140−150 +119%
4K	33 −127%	75−80 +127%

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 −122%	60−65 +122%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −117%	65−70 +117%
Elden Ring	45−50 −117%	100−105 +117%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −124%	110−120 +124%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −122%	60−65 +122%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −117%	65−70 +117%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −126%	140−150 +126%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −120%	90−95 +120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −116%	80−85 +116%
Valorant	60−65 −113%	130−140 +113%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −124%	110−120 +124%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −122%	60−65 +122%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −117%	65−70 +117%
Dota 2	36 −122%	80−85 +122%
Elden Ring	45−50 −117%	100−105 +117%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −118%	120−130 +118%
Fortnite	80−85 −126%	190−200 +126%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −126%	140−150 +126%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 −122%	120−130 +122%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −120%	90−95 +120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −120%	240−250 +120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −116%	80−85 +116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 −112%	110−120 +112%
Valorant	60−65 −113%	130−140 +113%
World of Tanks	190−200 −105%	400−450 +105%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −124%	110−120 +124%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −122%	60−65 +122%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −117%	65−70 +117%
Dota 2	137 −119%	300−310 +119%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −118%	120−130 +118%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −126%	140−150 +126%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −120%	240−250 +120%
Valorant	60−65 −113%	130−140 +113%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −127%	50−55 +127%
Elden Ring	24−27 −108%	50−55 +108%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −117%	50−55 +117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 −119%	300−310 +119%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −108%	27−30 +108%
World of Tanks	100−110 −126%	240−250 +126%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −126%	70−75 +126%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −108%	27−30 +108%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −118%	24−27 +118%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −116%	80−85 +116%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −116%	80−85 +116%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −127%	75−80 +127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −111%	40−45 +111%
Valorant	35−40 −124%	85−90 +124%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −118%	24−27 +118%
Dota 2	24−27 −112%	55−60 +112%
Elden Ring	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −112%	55−60 +112%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −122%	100−105 +122%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −112%	55−60 +112%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −118%	24−27 +118%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Dota 2	68 −121%	150−160 +121%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −111%	40−45 +111%
Fortnite	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −114%	45−50 +114%
Valorant	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%

This is how R9 280X and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64X is 119% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 64X is 127% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.18	34.77
Recency	8 October 2013	19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm

Pro Vega 64X has a 129.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X 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.