Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.40
+15.6%

R9 280 outperforms Pro Vega 16 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking360393
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.26no data
Power efficiency5.2012.00
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameTahitiVega 12
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)14 November 2018 (5 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 cores17921024
Core clock speedno data815 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1190 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate104.576.16
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS2.437 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11264

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 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit1024 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s307.2 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® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 280 14.40
+15.6%
Pro Vega 16 12.46

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.

R9 280 5557
+15.6%
Pro Vega 16 4809

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
+3.6%
Pro Vega 16 7745

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 HD65−70
+10.2%
59
−10.2%
4K40−45
+5.3%
38
−5.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+0%
27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how R9 280 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:

  • R9 280 is 10% faster in 1080p
  • R9 280 is 5% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.40 12.46
Recency 4 March 2014 14 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 75 Watt

R9 280 has a 15.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 16 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation 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 Pro Vega 16
Radeon Pro Vega 16

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
3.8 10 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 16 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.