Radeon R9 280X vs R9 FURY X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon R9 A375 Radeon R9 Fury Radeon R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X2 Radeon R9 Nano
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon HD 7870 XT Radeon HD 7950 Radeon HD 7950 Boost Radeon HD 7950 Mac Edition Radeon HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 Radeon HD 7970 Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition Radeon HD 8950 OEM Radeon HD 8970 OEM Radeon R9 280 Radeon R9 280X Radeon R9 280X2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X and Radeon R9 280X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 FURY X
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
21.42
+64.1%

R9 FURY X outperforms R9 280X by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
R9 280X R9 280X

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking231362
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.984.82
Power efficiency6.204.15
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameFijiTahiti
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferencereference
Release date24 June 2015 (9 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 FURY X has 24% 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 cores40962048
Compute units64no data
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate268.8128.0
Floating-point processing power8.602 TFLOPS4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs256128

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length191 mm275 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB3 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s288 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity++
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support++

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration++
CrossFire++
FRTC+-
FreeSync++
HD3D++
LiquidVR++
PowerTune+-
TressFX++
TrueAudio++
UVD++
VCE+-
DDMA audio++

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
Mantle+-

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.

R9 FURY X 21.42
+64.1%
R9 280X 13.05

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 FURY X 9579
+64.1%
R9 280X 5837

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 FURY X 16710
+100%
R9 280X 8343

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 HD100−110
+53.8%
65
−53.8%
4K50−55
+61.3%
31
−61.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.49
−41.1%
4.60
+41.1%
4K12.98
−34.6%
9.65
+34.6%
  • R9 280X has 41% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 280X has 35% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 158
+0%
158
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Dota 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 60
+0%
60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 54
+0%
54
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48
+0%
48
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Dota 2 137
+0%
137
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 29
+0%
29
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 48
+0%
48
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 68
+0%
68
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

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

  • R9 FURY X is 54% faster in 1080p
  • R9 FURY X is 61% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 21.42 13.05
Recency 24 June 2015 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 3 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 250 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 64.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R9 280X, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.

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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R9 FURY X
Radeon R9 FURY X
AMD Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280X
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
GTX 1060 3 GB GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
R9 280X Radeon R9 280X
vs
GTX 770 GeForce GTX 770
R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
R9 Fury Radeon R9 Fury
R9 390X R9 390X
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
RX 480 RX 480
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
GTX 780 Ti GTX 780 Ti
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
GTX 970 GTX 970
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
R9 290X R9 290X
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
GTX 1050 Ti GTX 1050 Ti
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
HD 7870 HD 7870
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
RX 570 RX 570
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
RX 580 RX 580
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
R9 390 R9 390
vs
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.3 84 votes

Rate Radeon R9 FURY X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 708 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 FURY X or Radeon R9 280X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.