Radeon RX 560 Mobile vs R9 280

Place in the ranking	360	413
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.26	5.67
Power efficiency	4.99	14.20
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Baffin
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	5 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 560 Mobile has 8% better value for money than R9 280.

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 cores	1792	896
Core clock speed	no data	1175 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	1275 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	58.97
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	1.887 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	56

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 size	no data	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	96 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No 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.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
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
+27.7%

RX 560 Mobile 11.28

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
+39.8%

RX 560 Mobile 5738

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 HD

55−60
+22.2%

−22.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.07

2.22

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	33 +0%	33 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	28 +0%	28 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	21 +0%	21 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

This is how R9 280 and RX 560 Mobile compete in popular games:

R9 280 is 22% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.40	11.28
Recency	4 March 2014	5 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	55 Watt

R9 280 has a 27.7% higher aggregate performance score.

RX 560 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 263.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.