R9 280x Vs Gtx 660
AMD Radeon R9 280X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Price now 162$
Games supported 81%
Price at present 199$
Games supported 76%
General info
Comparison of graphics carte architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 246 | 303 |
| Value for coin | xv.14 | 6.84 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU lawmaking name | Thaiti XTL | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Pattern | reference | no data |
| Release appointment | 8 October 2013 (8 years ago) | 16 August 2012 (nine years ago) |
| Launch cost (MSRP) | $299 | $299 |
| Price now | $162 (0.5x MSRP) | $199 (0.7x MSRP) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
Technical specs
Full general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base of operations clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, merely for precise assessment yous take to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Annotation that power consumption of some graphics cards tin can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | no data |
| CUDA cores | no information | 1344 |
| Boost clock speed | yard MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | four,313 one thousand thousand | 3,540 1000000 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 250 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 102.5 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | 2,459.5 gflops |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (ability supply compatibility).
| Omnibus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe iii.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 9.5" (24.ane cm) |
| Height | no information | 4.376" (eleven.1 cm) |
| Width | ii-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pivot | no information |
| SLI options | no information | + |
Memory
Parameters of retention installed: its type, size, jitney, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors take no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of arrangement RAM.
| Retentivity blazon | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 6.0 GB/southward |
| Retentiveness bandwidth | 288 GB/due south | 144.2 GB/s |
| Shared retentivity | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 (then-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.
| Brandish Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, 1 Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | iv displays |
| Eyefinity | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no information | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if yous demand some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| CrossFire | i | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | + | no information |
| LiquidVR | ane | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TressFX | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | + | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
| 3D Gaming | no data | + |
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | one.1.126 |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no information | + |
Benchmark functioning
Non-gaming criterion operation comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, merely if you find some perceived inconsistencies, experience free to speak up in comments section, we ordinarily fix problems rapidly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark 11 Functioning GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Burn down Strike Graphics
- Unigine Heaven 3.0
- Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics carte a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four split up benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, ten, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with ii scenes, one depicting a daughter escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a infinite fleet set on on a caught planet. Information technology was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy criterion is now recommended to exist used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
3DMark xi is an obsolete DirectX 11 criterion by Futuremark. It used 4 tests based on two scenes, one existence few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken send, 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.
Criterion coverage: 16%
Deject Gate is an outdated DirectX xi feature level x 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 Tempest benchmark, it has been discontinued in Jan 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Burn down Strike is a DirectX 11 criterion for gaming PCs. It features 2 separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a peppery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Criterion coverage: xiii%
This is an old DirectX xi 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 iv.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Criterion coverage: five%
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively pocket-size differences. Information technology displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The criterion is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R9 280X and GeForce GTX 660 Ti. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 494 Mh/southward | 99 Mh/s |
| Decred / DCR (Decred) | i.07 Gh/s | no information |
| Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) | 14.42 Mh/southward | no data |
| Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.5 kh/southward | no information |
| Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 285 Sol/s | no data |
Gaming performance
Allow'southward see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a big set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 64 | 78 |
| 4K | 28 | no information |
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | twenty−22 | fourteen−16 |
Full Hd
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | twenty−22 +33.three% | fourteen−16 −33.3% |
| Assassin'due south Creed Valhalla | xx−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.3% |
| Battlefield 5 | twenty−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.3% |
| Phone call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22 +33.three% | fourteen−xvi −33.iii% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 +33.three% | xiv−xvi −33.3% |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | twenty−22 +33.iii% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Hitman 3 | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.iii% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22 +33.iii% | 14−sixteen −33.iii% |
| Red Expressionless Redemption two | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | xx−22 +33.3% | fourteen−sixteen −33.iii% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | twenty−22 +33.iii% | xiv−sixteen −33.3% |
Full Hard disk drive
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | xx−22 +33.3% | xiv−16 −33.three% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | xx−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Battleground 5 | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Call of Duty: Mod Warfare | 20−22 +33.3% | xiv−xvi −33.3% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 +33.iii% | 14−16 −33.three% |
| Far Weep 5 | 20−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.three% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | twenty−22 +33.3% | fourteen−sixteen −33.three% |
| Forza Horizon four | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.3% |
| Hitman iii | xx−22 +33.iii% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.3% |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | xx−22 +33.3% | xiv−xvi −33.3% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48 +220% | fourteen−xvi −220% |
| Picket Dogs: Legion | xx−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
Total Hard disk
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | twenty−22 +33.iii% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.three% |
| Battlefield five | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.three% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Far Weep 5 | twenty−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Forza Horizon four | 20−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.iii% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 +33.iii% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Lookout man Dogs: Legion | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.3% |
1440p
Loftier Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22 +33.3% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| Hitman three | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−xvi −33.three% |
| Horizon Nada Dawn | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.3% |
| Ruby-red Expressionless Redemption two | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.three% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Assassinator's Creed Valhalla | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Battleground 5 | xx−22 +33.three% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 +33.iii% | 14−sixteen −33.iii% |
| Far Weep 5 | twenty−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.iii% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | twenty−22 +33.3% | 14−xvi −33.3% |
| Sentinel Dogs: Legion | twenty−22 +33.three% | 14−xvi −33.3% |
4K
High Preset
| Phone call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.three% |
| Hitman three | 20−22 +33.three% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Horizon Zilch Dawn | twenty−22 +33.iii% | 14−xvi −33.3% |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.three% |
| Ruby-red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22 +33.three% | 14−16 −33.iii% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22 +33.3% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22 +33.three% | fourteen−16 −33.3% |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | twenty−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.3% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20−22 +33.3% | xiv−xvi −33.3% |
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22 +33.3% | fourteen−16 −33.3% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | twenty−22 +33.three% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 +33.three% | 14−xvi −33.3% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | xx−22 +33.3% | xiv−16 −33.3% |
| Forza Horizon four | twenty−22 +33.3% | 14−16 −33.3% |
| Picket Dogs: Legion | 20−22 +33.3% | 14−sixteen −33.iii% |
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 19.60 | 14.66 |
| Novelty | viii October 2013 | 16 August 2012 |
| Memory bus width | 384 | 192 |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 | 144.two |
Judging past the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
AMD Radeon R9 280X
since it shows better performance.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your vote
Exercise you think nosotros are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.
Competitors of Radeon R9 280X by NVIDIA
The nearest Radeon R9 280X's NVIDIA equivalent is GeForce GTX 770, which is faster by 1% and higher by iii positions in our rating.
Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon R9 280X:
Competitors of GeForce GTX 660 Ti by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 660 Ti from AMD is Radeon R9 270, which is slower by 1% and lower by 3 positions in our rating.
Hither are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 660 Ti:
Similar GPU comparisons
Nosotros selected several comparisons of graphics cards with operation more or less close to those reviewed, providing yous with more than options to consider.
User rating
Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, besides equally rate them yourself.
Charge per unit AMD Radeon R9 280X on a scale of i to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti on a scale of one to 5:
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question near this comparison, hold or disagree with our judgements, or report an mistake or mismatch.
Graphics settings
Screen resolution
FPS
Source: https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-R9-280X-vs-GeForce-GTX-660-Ti
0 Response to "R9 280x Vs Gtx 660"
Post a Comment