GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Radeon R9 280

#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
VS
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile RTX 3050 6GB Mobile RTX 3050 A Mobile RTX 3050 Max-Q RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 4 GB RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 6 GB RTX 3050 Mobile RTX 3050 Mobile Refresh RTX 3050 Mobile Refresh 4 GB RTX 3050 Mobile Refresh 6 GB RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q RTX 3050 Ti Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.44

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms R9 280 by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 280 R9 280
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile RTX 3050 6GB

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking374226
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.43no data
Power efficiency4.9528.78
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTahitiGN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores17922560
Core clock speedno data1237 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1492 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate104.5no data
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB6 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-

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 280 14.44
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 25.19
+74.4%

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 280 8020
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 11960
+49.1%

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 HD40−45
−77.5%
71
+77.5%
1440p18−20
−88.9%
34
+88.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.98no data
1440p15.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 91
+0%
91
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+0%
91
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how R9 280 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 78% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 89% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 14.44 25.19
Recency 4 March 2014 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 60 Watt

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 74.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a notebook one.

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 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB
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 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD 7990 Radeon HD 7990
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
vs
RTX 2060 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 680 GeForce GTX 680
6600 GT 6600 GT
vs
ATI X1900 XTX X1900 XTX
Radeon 740M 740M
vs
GT 640M GT 640M
Apple M3 Pro 18-Core GPU M3 Pro 18-Core GPU
vs
Quadro P2200 P2200
Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU M3 Max 40-Core GPU
vs
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
RTX 3070 Ti Max-Q RTX 3070 Ti Max-Q
vs
Quadro P4000 P4000
GeForce 8300 8300
vs
HD Graphics 520 HD Graphics 520
R5 M420 R5 M420
vs
Iris Graphics 550 Iris Graphics 550
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile
vs
GeForce 930M 930M
RTX 3000 Max-Q RTX 3000 Max-Q
vs
GeForce 930M 930M
7600 GS 7600 GS
vs
GT 740M GT 740M

Community ratings

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

3.6 421 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 754 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.