GeForce GTX 280 vs Radeon R9 Fury

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GTX 280, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.84
+644%

R9 Fury outperforms GTX 280 by a whopping 644% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking219739
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.150.12
Power efficiency6.190.97
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameFijiGT200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 6692% better value for money than GTX 280.

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 cores3584240
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data602 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt236 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate224.048.16
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22480

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options-+
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)GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1107 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s141.7 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortHDTVDual Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
DisplayPort support+-
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

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+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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 Fury 24.84
+644%
GTX 280 3.34

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 9570
+645%
GTX 280 1285

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 HD88
+780%
10−12
−780%
1440p103
+758%
12−14
−758%
4K47
+683%
6−7
−683%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.2464.90
1440p5.3354.08
4K11.68108.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+710%
10−11
−710%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+750%
6−7
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+714%
7−8
−714%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+706%
18−20
−706%
Hitman 3 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+721%
14−16
−721%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+750%
10−11
−750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Battlefield 5 51
+750%
6−7
−750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+750%
6−7
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+714%
7−8
−714%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+706%
18−20
−706%
Hitman 3 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+721%
14−16
−721%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+750%
10−11
−750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+750%
6−7
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+714%
7−8
−714%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+706%
18−20
−706%
Hitman 3 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+721%
14−16
−721%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+667%
6−7
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+683%
6−7
−683%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+689%
18−20
−689%
Hitman 3 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+750%
6−7
−750%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+683%
6−7
−683%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+678%
18−20
−678%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+660%
5−6
−660%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Hitman 3 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+700%
16−18
−700%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+800%
4−5
−800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

This is how R9 Fury and GTX 280 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 780% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 758% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 683% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.84 3.34
Recency 10 July 2015 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 236 Watt

R9 Fury has a 643.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 280, on the other hand, has 16.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.


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

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
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 280

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.7 174 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 107 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.