Radeon RX 560 Mobile vs R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X with Radeon RX 560 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
R9 280X outperforms 560 Mobile by a substantial 36% 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 | 403 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.87 | 5.67 |
| Power efficiency | 4.28 | 12.14 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Baffin |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 560 Mobile has 16% better value for money than R9 280X.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 76.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 2.462 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 1024 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | no data |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 96 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
+51.2%
| 43
−51.2%
|
| 4K | 31
−16.1%
| 36
+16.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
−97.8%
| 2.33
+97.8%
|
| 4K | 9.65
−247%
| 2.78
+247%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 98% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 247% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+34.9%
|
40−45
−34.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35
−31.4%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+81.6%
|
87
−81.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+37.5%
|
30−35
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+6.1%
|
49
−6.1%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+22.7%
|
95−100
−22.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+24.5%
|
150−160
−24.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+23%
|
70−75
−23%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+34.9%
|
40−45
−34.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30
−53.3%
|
| Fortnite | 60
−5%
|
63
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+37.5%
|
30−35
−37.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+38.5%
|
35−40
−38.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45
−15.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+37.1%
|
35
−37.1%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+22.7%
|
95−100
−22.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+85.1%
|
70−75
−85.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+34.9%
|
40−45
−34.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27
−70.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+123%
|
13
−123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+22.7%
|
95−100
−22.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 48
−4.2%
|
50
+4.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+34.2%
|
75−80
−34.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+138%
|
55−60
−138%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+28.1%
|
110−120
−28.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+41.8%
|
55−60
−41.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+78.9%
|
35−40
−78.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−157%
|
36
+157%
|
This is how R9 280X and RX 560 Mobile compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 51% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 16% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 280X is 138% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 157% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 280X performs better in 60 tests (94%)
- RX 560 Mobile performs better in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.95 | 10.28 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 5 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
R9 280X has a 35.7% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 560 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 284.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
