Radeon RX 460 vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	351	433
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.59	1.12
Power efficiency	4.18	9.79
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Baffin
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	8 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$86

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X has 399% better value for money than RX 460.

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	896
Core clock speed	no data	1090 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	67.20
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	2.15 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	56

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 x8
Length	275 mm	170 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	112.0 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	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	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131

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
+42.3%

RX 460 10.67

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
+42.3%

RX 460 4102

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 280X 10792
+25.5%

RX 460 8597

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.

R9 280X 8343
+46.3%

RX 460 5701

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 280X 52117
+49.4%

RX 460 34892

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 280X 285376

RX 460 307888
+7.9%

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 +60%	40 −60%
1440p	95−100 +35.7%	70 −35.7%
4K	33 +57.1%	21 −57.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67 −117%	2.15 +117%
1440p	3.15 −156%	1.23 +156%
4K	9.06 −121%	4.10 +121%

RX 460 has 117% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 460 has 156% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 460 has 121% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +50%	18 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Elden Ring	45−50 +48.4%	30−35 −48.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +40%	35−40 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +35%	20−22 −35%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +44.2%	40−45 −44.2%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	41 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +32.1%	27−30 −32.1%
Valorant	60−65 +52.5%	40−45 −52.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +40%	35−40 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +35%	20−22 −35%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Dota 2	36 +50%	24 −50%
Elden Ring	45−50 +48.4%	30−35 −48.4%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +25%	44 −25%
Fortnite	80−85 +35.5%	60−65 −35.5%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +44.2%	40−45 −44.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 +54.3%	35 −54.3%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +51.9%	27 −51.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +114%	51 −114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +118%	17 −118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +62.5%	30−35 −62.5%
Valorant	60−65 +52.5%	40−45 −52.5%
World of Tanks	190−200 +29.1%	150−160 −29.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +48.5%	33 −48.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +170%	10 −170%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Dota 2	137 +261%	35−40 −261%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +27.9%	40−45 −27.9%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +44.2%	40−45 −44.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +289%	28 −289%
Valorant	60−65 +52.5%	40−45 −52.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Elden Ring	24−27 +60%	14−16 −60%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +174%	50−55 −174%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
World of Tanks	100−110 +39.5%	75−80 −39.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +47.6%	21−24 −47.6%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +60.9%	21−24 −60.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +54.2%	24−27 −54.2%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +57.1%	21−24 −57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Valorant	35−40 +46.2%	24−27 −46.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Dota 2	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Elden Ring	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +40.6%	32 −40.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Dota 2	68 +224%	21−24 −224%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Fortnite	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Valorant	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%

This is how R9 280X and RX 460 compete in popular games:

R9 280X is 60% faster in 1080p
R9 280X is 36% faster in 1440p
R9 280X is 57% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 289% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 280X is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.18	10.67
Recency	8 October 2013	8 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt