Radeon RX 6900 XT vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	351	23
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.57	29.89
Power efficiency	4.16	15.88
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Navi 21
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6900 XT has 437% better value for money than R9 280X.

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	5120
Core clock speed	no data	1825 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	2250 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	720.0
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	128
TMUs	128	320
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	80

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 4.0 x16
Length	275 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	2x 8-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2000 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	1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	+	1.2

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 15.15

RX 6900 XT 69.43
+358%

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

RX 6900 XT 26747
+358%

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

RX 6900 XT 59119
+448%

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

RX 6900 XT 50587
+506%

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 −206%	196 +206%
1440p	27−30 −381%	130 +381%
4K	31 −161%	81 +161%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67	5.10
1440p	11.07	7.68
4K	9.65	12.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

−463%

130−140
+463%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −244%	117 +244%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −576%	169 +576%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −353%	220−230 +353%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 −297%	110−120 +297%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −463%	130−140 +463%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −234%	110−120 +234%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −315%	170−180 +315%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −143%	230−240 +143%
Hitman 3	27−30 −345%	120−130 +345%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 −229%	250−260 +229%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −204%	150−160 +204%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −198%	120−130 +198%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 −498%	290−300 +498%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −94.9%	150−160 +94.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −721%	279 +721%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −468%	142 +468%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −353%	220−230 +353%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 −297%	110−120 +297%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −463%	130−140 +463%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −234%	110−120 +234%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −315%	170−180 +315%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −143%	230−240 +143%
Hitman 3	27−30 −345%	120−130 +345%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 −229%	250−260 +229%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −204%	150−160 +204%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −198%	120−130 +198%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 −498%	290−300 +498%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110 −35.5%	140−150 +35.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −94.9%	150−160 +94.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −188%	98 +188%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −448%	137 +448%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 −297%	110−120 +297%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −463%	130−140 +463%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −234%	110−120 +234%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −153%	248 +153%
Hitman 3	27−30 −345%	120−130 +345%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 −268%	283 +268%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 −498%	290−300 +498%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 −720%	164 +720%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −55.1%	121 +55.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

−198%

120−130
+198%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −469%	160−170 +469%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −383%	110−120 +383%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −560%	99 +560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −808%	109 +808%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −406%	80−85 +406%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −825%	70−75 +825%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −382%	80−85 +382%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −243%	270−280 +243%
Hitman 3	18−20 −461%	100−110 +461%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −623%	224 +623%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −333%	117 +333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −630%	190−200 +630%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −688%	120−130 +688%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −157%	230−240 +157%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−356%

110−120
+356%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −480%	85−90 +480%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 −527%	65−70 +527%
Hitman 3	10−12 −655%	83 +655%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 −197%	220−230 +197%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −633%	110−120 +633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −771%	122 +771%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −656%	68 +656%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −843%	66 +843%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −538%	50−55 +538%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −710%	162 +710%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −633%	110−120 +633%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −800%	54 +800%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−436%

75−80
+436%

This is how R9 280X and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

RX 6900 XT is 206% faster in 1080p
RX 6900 XT is 381% faster in 1440p
RX 6900 XT is 161% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 1650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6900 XT surpassed R9 280X in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.15	69.43
Recency	8 October 2013	28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	300 Watt

R9 280X has 20% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 358.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.

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