Radeon R9 280 vs R9 Fury

VS

Aggregate performance score

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

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.85
+72%

R9 Fury outperforms R9 280 by an impressive 72% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking223365
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.045.35
Power efficiency6.224.97
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameFijiTahiti
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)4 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $279

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 50% 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 cores35841792
Compute units56no data
Boost clock speed1000 MHz933 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt200 Watt
Texture fill rate224.0104.5
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS3.344 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs224112

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 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data275 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB3 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s240 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity++
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire++
FRTC+-
FreeSync++
HD3D++
LiquidVR++
PowerTune+-
TressFX++
TrueAudio++
UVD++
VCE+-
DDMA audio++

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
Mantle+-

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 Fury 24.85
+72%
R9 280 14.45

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 Fury 9555
+72%
R9 280 5556

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 Fury 14580
+81.8%
R9 280 8020

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 HD89
+78%
50−55
−78%
1440p97
+76.4%
55−60
−76.4%
4K49
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.17
−10.5%
5.58
+10.5%
1440p5.66
−11.6%
5.07
+11.6%
4K11.20
−8.4%
10.33
+8.4%
  • R9 280 has 11% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 280 has 12% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • R9 280 has 8% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+85.2%
27−30
−85.2%
Elden Ring 80−85
+80%
45−50
−80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+90%
40−45
−90%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+85.2%
27−30
−85.2%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+81.7%
60−65
−81.7%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+85.7%
35−40
−85.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+80%
30−33
−80%
Valorant 100−105
+81.8%
55−60
−81.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+90%
40−45
−90%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+85.2%
27−30
−85.2%
Dota 2 85−90
+88.9%
45−50
−88.9%
Elden Ring 80−85
+80%
45−50
−80%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+90%
40−45
−90%
Fortnite 120−130
+78.6%
70−75
−78.6%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+81.7%
60−65
−81.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+88.9%
45−50
−88.9%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+85.7%
35−40
−85.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+73.3%
90−95
−73.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+80%
30−33
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76
+90%
40−45
−90%
Valorant 100−105
+81.8%
55−60
−81.8%
World of Tanks 268
+78.7%
150−160
−78.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+90%
40−45
−90%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+85.2%
27−30
−85.2%
Dota 2 130
+73.3%
75−80
−73.3%
Far Cry 5 101
+83.6%
55−60
−83.6%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+81.7%
60−65
−81.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+73.3%
90−95
−73.3%
Valorant 100−105
+81.8%
55−60
−81.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
+75%
24−27
−75%
Elden Ring 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+75%
24−27
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+75%
100−105
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%
World of Tanks 158
+75.6%
90−95
−75.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+85.2%
27−30
−85.2%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+80%
40−45
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+88.6%
35−40
−88.6%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+100%
18−20
−100%
Valorant 65−70
+91.4%
35−40
−91.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Dota 2 47
+74.1%
27−30
−74.1%
Elden Ring 20−22
+100%
10−11
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 47
+74.1%
27−30
−74.1%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+90%
40−45
−90%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+74.1%
27−30
−74.1%
World of Tanks 109
+81.7%
60−65
−81.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Dota 2 102
+85.5%
55−60
−85.5%
Far Cry 5 38
+81%
21−24
−81%
Fortnite 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Valorant 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%

This is how R9 Fury and R9 280 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 78% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 76% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 81% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.85 14.45
Recency 10 July 2015 4 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 3 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 200 Watt

R9 Fury has a 72% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R9 280, on the other hand, has 37.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 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 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
AMD Radeon R9 280
Radeon R9 280

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 175 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 410 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 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.