AMD Radeon R9 280 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 280 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 933 MHz vs 876 MHz
- Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 200 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 208.3x more memory clock speed: 1250 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
- Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 667 vs 649
- Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.829 vs 62.027
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1266.685 vs 1218.137
- Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.495 vs 5.835
- 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 79.909 vs 36.842
- Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 365.384 vs 215.546
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 4 March 2014 vs 19 February 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz vs 876 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 200 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 667 vs 649 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 vs 62.027 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 vs 1218.137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 vs 5.835 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 vs 36.842 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 vs 215.546 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
- Around 79% higher texture fill rate: 187.5 billion / sec vs 104.5 GTexel / s
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 2688 vs 1792
- Around 41% better floating-point performance: 4,709 gflops vs 3,344 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 3 GB
- Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8194 vs 5543
- Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10176 vs 7957
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3337
- Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10176 vs 7957
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3337
- Around 44% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2901 vs 2009
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 187.5 billion / sec vs 104.5 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2688 vs 1792 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,709 gflops vs 3,344 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 3 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8194 vs 5543 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10176 vs 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10176 vs 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3337 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2901 vs 2009 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 280
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 280 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5543 | 8194 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 667 | 649 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 | 62.027 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 | 1218.137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 | 5.835 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 | 36.842 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 | 215.546 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7957 | 10176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7957 | 10176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2009 | 2901 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 24530 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 280 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | Tahiti | GK110 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 4 March 2014 | 19 February 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $999 |
| Place in performance rating | 427 | 422 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Price now | $2,054.59 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 5.09 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 3,344 gflops | 4,709 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 2688 |
| Stream Processors | 1792 | |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 GTexel / s | 187.5 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 200 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4,313 million | 7,080 million |
| Core clock speed | 837 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 2688 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI... |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | One 8-pin and one 6-pin |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 384-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision Live | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Blu Ray 3D | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 280 with others
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 5500
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 5000M
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
AMDRadeon Pro V340 MxGPU
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6800X
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
IntelArc A550M
