AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon RX 5500M and AMD Radeon R9 280X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory, Technologies, Video outputs and ports, API support. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon RX 5500M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 65% higher boost clock speed: 1645 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 13% higher texture fill rate: 144.76 GT/s vs 128.0 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 7 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11058 vs 9603
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11058 vs 9603
- Around 80% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4223 vs 2351
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 7 Oct 2019 vs 8 October 2013 |
Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 144.76 GT/s vs 128.0 GTexel / s |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm vs 28 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 3 GB |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11058 vs 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11058 vs 9603 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4223 vs 2351 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280X
- Around 95% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6173 vs 3166
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 679 vs 336
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3700 vs 3617
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3700 vs 3617
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6173 vs 3166 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 679 vs 336 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3700 vs 3617 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3345 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3700 vs 3617 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3345 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 5500M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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 RX 5500M | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3166 | 6173 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 336 | 679 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 38080 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11058 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3617 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3345 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11058 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3617 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3345 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4223 | 2351 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon RX 5500M | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | RDNA | GCN 1.0 |
Launch date | 7 Oct 2019 | 8 October 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 397 | 394 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Code name | Tahiti | |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Compute units | 22 | |
Core clock speed | 1448 MHz | |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 9.26 TFLOPs | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.63 TFLOPs | |
Pixel fill rate | 52.6 GP/s | |
Stream Processors | 1408 | 2048 |
Texture fill rate | 144.76 GT/s | 128.0 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 6400 million | 4,313 million |
Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | |
Pipelines | 2048 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Length | 275 mm | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 288 GB/s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 384 Bit |
Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
4K H264 Decode | ||
4K H264 Encode | ||
FreeSync | ||
H265/HEVC Decode | ||
H265/HEVC Encode | ||
HDMI 4K Support | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Vulkan |