Radeon R7 260 vs R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X and Radeon R7 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 280X outperforms R7 260 by a whopping 102% 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 | 395 | 581 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.65 | 3.13 |
| Power efficiency | 4.25 | 5.54 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Bonaire |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | reference |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 17 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280X has 49% better value for money than R7 260.
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 | 768 |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 48.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 1.536 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 256 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 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 1 x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 104 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 | + | + |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
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.
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.
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
+117%
| 30−35
−117%
|
| 4K | 31
+121%
| 14−16
−121%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
−26.6%
| 3.63
+26.6%
|
| 4K | 9.65
−23.9%
| 7.79
+23.9%
|
- R7 260 has 27% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 260 has 24% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+111%
|
75−80
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+116%
|
55−60
−116%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+102%
|
95−100
−102%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+102%
|
45−50
−102%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+122%
|
27−30
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+116%
|
55−60
−116%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+111%
|
65−70
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+116%
|
55−60
−116%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 48
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+112%
|
50−55
−112%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+109%
|
65−70
−109%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+109%
|
70−75
−109%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+127%
|
30−33
−127%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
This is how R9 280X and R7 260 compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 117% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 121% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.20 | 6.54 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 17 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
R9 280X has a 101.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 260, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260 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.
