GeForce GT 730 vs Radeon R9 280X

Place in the ranking	350	858
Place by popularity	not in top-100	34
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.55	0.19
Power efficiency	4.22	3.07
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Tahiti	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	18 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X has 2821% better value for money than GT 730.

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	2048	96
Core clock speed	no data	700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	49 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	11.2 GT/s
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	128	16

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 support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	145 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	None

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
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 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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 280X 15.13
+600%

GT 730 2.16

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 280X 5837
+599%

GT 730 835

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 280X 8343
+613%

GT 730 1170

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	65 +622%	9−10 −622%
4K	32 +700%	4−5 −700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.60	6.67
4K	9.34	15.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

+700%

3−4
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +750%	4−5 −750%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +720%	5−6 −720%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +717%	12−14 −717%
Hitman 3	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +670%	10−11 −670%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +629%	7−8 −629%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +720%	5−6 −720%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +680%	10−11 −680%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +750%	4−5 −750%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +720%	5−6 −720%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +717%	12−14 −717%
Hitman 3	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +670%	10−11 −670%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +629%	7−8 −629%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +720%	5−6 −720%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110 +686%	14−16 −686%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +680%	10−11 −680%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +750%	4−5 −750%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +717%	12−14 −717%
Hitman 3	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +670%	10−11 −670%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +680%	10−11 −680%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+720%

5−6
−720%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +690%	10−11 −690%
Hitman 3	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +675%	12−14 −675%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+733%

3−4
−733%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Hitman 3	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+1300%

1−2

−1300%

This is how R9 280X and GT 730 compete in popular games:

R9 280X is 622% faster in 1080p
R9 280X is 700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.13	2.16
Recency	8 October 2013	18 June 2014
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	49 Watt