Radeon HD 6950M vs R9 280

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Radeon HD 6950M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.40
+304%

R9 280 outperforms HD 6950M by a whopping 304% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking360714
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.26no data
Power efficiency4.994.93
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameTahitiBlackcomb
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores1792960
Core clock speedno data580 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate104.527.84
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.114 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11248

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 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s115.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+N/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.40 3.56
Recency 4 March 2014 4 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 50 Watt

R9 280 has a 304.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6950M, on the other hand, has 300% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook one.


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 280
Radeon R9 280
AMD Radeon HD 6950M
Radeon HD 6950M

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.


3.6 384 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon HD 6950M 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.