GeForce GTX 870M vs Radeon R9 280X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280X with GeForce GTX 870M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280X
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
15.15
+69.3%

R9 280X outperforms GTX 870M by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking352489
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.57no data
Power efficiency4.156.14
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTahitiGK104
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)12 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 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 cores20481344
Core clock speedno data941 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz967 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate128.0108.3
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS2.599 TFLOPS
ROPs3224
TMUs128112

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 3.0PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone
SLI options-+

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 GB3 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width384 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth288 GB/s120.0 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, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP content protection-+
DisplayPort support+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

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
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA-+

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 15.15
+69.3%
GTX 870M 8.95

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
+69.2%
GTX 870M 3449

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 280X 10792
+50.8%
GTX 870M 7156

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 280X 33045
+37.5%
GTX 870M 24035

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
+77.7%
GTX 870M 4694

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 280X 52117
+66.4%
GTX 870M 31322

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

R9 280X 95
+47.1%
GTX 870M 65

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

R9 280X 1017
+74.7%
GTX 870M 582

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 HD64
+42.2%
45
−42.2%
4K31
+63.2%
19
−63.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.67no data
4K9.65no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+54.5%
21−24
−54.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+64%
24−27
−64%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+63.3%
60−65
−63.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
+70.6%
16−18
−70.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+54%
50−55
−54%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+82.1%
27−30
−82.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+64%
24−27
−64%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+69%
27−30
−69%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+30%
60−65
−30%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+54.5%
21−24
−54.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+64%
24−27
−64%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+63.3%
60−65
−63.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
+70.6%
16−18
−70.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+54%
50−55
−54%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+82.1%
27−30
−82.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+64%
24−27
−64%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+69%
27−30
−69%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110
+25%
88
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+30%
60−65
−30%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+54.5%
21−24
−54.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+63.3%
60−65
−63.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
+70.6%
16−18
−70.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+54%
50−55
−54%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+69%
27−30
−69%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+33.3%
15
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+30%
60−65
−30%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+64%
24−27
−64%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+70.6%
16−18
−70.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+114%
35−40
−114%
Hitman 3 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+63.2%
18−20
−63.2%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+63.2%
55−60
−63.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+66.7%
14−16
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Hitman 3 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+111%
35−40
−111%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+81.8%
10−12
−81.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

This is how R9 280X and GTX 870M compete in popular games:

  • R9 280X is 42% faster in 1080p
  • R9 280X is 63% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 280X surpassed GTX 870M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.15 8.95
Recency 8 October 2013 12 March 2014
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 100 Watt

R9 280X has a 69.3% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 870M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 870M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 870M 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 280X
Radeon R9 280X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M
GeForce GTX 870M

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.


4.1 693 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 106 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 870M 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.