Quadro RTX 8000 vs Radeon R9 M280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M280X with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms R9 M280X by a whopping 2354% 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 | 946 | 80 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.91 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.10 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Saturn | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 February 2015 (11 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 896 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 56 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 6 MB |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | Not Listed | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 672.0 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 27
−2307%
| 650−700
+2307%
|
| 4K | 18
−2122%
| 400−450
+2122%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 15.38 |
| 4K | no data | 25.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−2317%
|
290−300
+2317%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2336%
|
950−1000
+2336%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 67
−2288%
|
1600−1650
+2288%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
−2261%
|
850−900
+2261%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−2088%
|
350−400
+2088%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2336%
|
950−1000
+2336%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
−2319%
|
750−800
+2319%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2336%
|
950−1000
+2336%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−2268%
|
450−500
+2268%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−2208%
|
300−310
+2208%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
This is how R9 M280X and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 2307% faster in 1080p
- RTX 8000 is 2122% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.94 | 47.61 |
| Recency | 5 February 2015 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 8000 has a 2354% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M280X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M280X is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
