Radeon Vega 7 vs R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.40
+93%

R9 280 outperforms Vega 7 by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking361526
Place by popularitynot in top-10039
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.26no data
Power efficiency4.9911.48
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTahitiCezanne
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores1792448
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1900 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate104.553.20
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs11228

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16IGP
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount3 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
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 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 Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.2

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
+93%
Vega 7 7.46

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
+140%
Vega 7 3348

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
+73.9%
23
−73.9%
1440p65−70
+80.6%
36
−80.6%
4K35−40
+75%
20
−75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.98no data
1440p4.29no data
4K7.97no data

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.40 7.46
Recency 4 March 2014 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 45 Watt

R9 280 has a 93% higher aggregate performance score.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 344.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.


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 Vega 7
Radeon Vega 7

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 1888 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 7 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.