GTX 960 vs R9 280X

[Warren Pnigel]

I'm doing a build for a friend and wanted to know which one is better? I've heard that the r9 280x is better, and they're around the same price. Thanks guys. 

[Castdeath97]

R9 280X, more vRam and better performance.

[minibois]

I'm doing a build for a friend and wanted to know which one is better? I've heard that the r9 280x is better, and they're around the same price. Thanks guys. 

280X performs better.

960 uses less power and thus is cooler.

 

Is the extra heat worth it to you? Do you have a decent case for the PC?

[Atmos]

280X is faster, and offers more vram than the 2gb 960.

 

Thef 4gb 960 trades blows, but is most commonly more expensive.

[Warren Pnigel]

280X performs better.

960 uses less power and thus is cooler.

 

Is the extra heat worth it to you? Do you have a decent case for the PC?

It's a corsair 100r

[minibois]

It's a corsair 100r

I think your friend would be fine with a 280X

[REX.exe]

"friend"

 

280X doe.

[Majestic]

What are the requirements, what does he do with his PC, is he in a warm enviroment, which games does he play, does he care about noiselevels.

Does he have sufficient power supply, which system is it being put in. (like if it's an AMD CPU, you're better off with nvidia).

 

Provide context. Because between the 280X and the 960 there is no "best". "Best" can only be assigned when certain requirements are involved.

[ZetZet]

What are the requirements, what does he do with his PC, is he in a warm enviroment, which games does he play, does he care about noiselevels.

 

Provide context. Because between the 280X and the 960 there is no "best". "Best" can only be assigned when certain requirements are involved.

no actually. 960 is comparable to 280. 280x completely smashes it, in every game.

[Majestic]

no actually. 960 is comparable to 280. 280x completely smashes it, in every game.

 

It doesn't "completely smash it". Look at witcher 3, gta5 and project cars. The rest of the times only when you're cranking settings so fps fall way below 60fps.

 

I agree in terms of raw performance (except for tessallation!) the 280x is better (and also 50 euro more expensive in holland). But stop using superlatives like "completely smash". It's bullocks.

 

But still, he provides no context so you can't possibly give any recommendation.

[ZetZet]

It doesn't "completely smash it". Look at witcher 3, gta5 and project cars. The rest of the times only when you're cranking settings so fps fall way below 60fps.

 

I agree in terms of raw performance (except for tessallation!) the 280x is better. But stop using superlatives like "completely smash". It's bullocks.

 

But still, he provides no context so you can't possibly give any recommendation.

witcher is known to be bad for amd cards. in gta v 280x wins again. In every other game r9 280x is around 20% faster.

[Majestic]

witcher is known to be bad for amd cards. in gta v 280x wins again. In every other game r9 280x is around 20% faster.

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/05/pcars/charts4/pcars_c_1920h.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/05/w3/charts6/w3m_high_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/04/gtav/charts9/gtav_vhigh_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/03/hardline/charts/bfh_high_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/01/dying_light/charts/dl_high_1920.png

 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6025/3/total-war-attila-getest-met-23-gpus-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6023/3/battlefield-hardline-getest-met-23-gpus-inclusief-frametimes-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

 

even the pundit websites

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/979/bench/1920.png

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/991/bench/1920_Normal.png

 

yeah it really smashes it to bits. just performs like a 50 euro more expensive card to me. though i question techspots and guru3d's methods. seeing how close amd's 7000 series rebrand-cards are to the GTX 900 series. seems iffy to me.

 

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1006/bench/1080_Medium.png

i mean they have the 280x above the 960 in witcher 3. 

 

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1006/bench/CPU_01.png

and the 8350 only a few fps away from the core i5's.

 

Talk about bad fucking testing. This seems like pandering to me, they create scenario's where everyone is a winner and they're actively looking for situations in games where no performance issues are found. If techspots testing was "real world" we'd have no forumposts going "bad fps in game X". So they're not showing real world performance.

 

Again though, not swinging either way. Both cards have merits, so context must be provided. Alas, i don't think OP knows this.

[ZetZet]

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/05/pcars/charts4/pcars_c_1920h.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/05/w3/charts6/w3m_high_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/04/gtav/charts9/gtav_vhigh_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/03/hardline/charts/bfh_high_1920.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/01/dying_light/charts/dl_high_1920.png

 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6025/3/total-war-attila-getest-met-23-gpus-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6023/3/battlefield-hardline-getest-met-23-gpus-inclusief-frametimes-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

 

yeah it really smashes it to bits.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/21.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,14.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,18.html

I can cherry pick too. R9 280X is faster most of the time so it's easier for me. 

[Majestic]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/21.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,14.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,18.html

I can cherry pick too. R9 280X is faster most of the time so it's easier for me. 

 

read my edit. I question their testing, based on their results elsewhere. And i already said it's faster, but you're generalizing yet again and reducing the entire discussion into one single aspect. You just reset your opinion on this every single 280x vs. 960 post and don't want to admit there are different aspects to a graphics card.

[ZetZet]

read my edit. I question their testing, based on their results elsewhere.

techspot might suck. guru3d or tpu doesn't seem to though.

[ansauri]

no actually. 960 is comparable to 280. 280x completely smashes it, in every game.

 

960 is a bit better than 280, and 280x is a bit better than 960. Btw, 960 wins 280x at GTA V, Project Cars and The WItcher 3. Also 960 has full suport to dx12, while 280x only supports the minimum, 11.2, and with just 2 ACE it is to see if it will able to match parallel compute performance.

[Majestic]

techspot might suck. guru3d or tpu doesn't seem to though.

 

Compare 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6023/3/battlefield-hardline-getest-met-23-gpus-inclusief-frametimes-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

 

to 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,15.html

 

Guru3D

 

960 vs 280X 

58 vs 72 fps

That's a difference of 24% in favor.

 

970 vs 280X

84 vs 72 fps

Difference of 16.7% against.

 

Hardware.info

 

960 vs 280X 

50 vs 60 fps

That's a difference of 20% in favor. About the same, as expected.

 

970 vs 280X

83.3 vs 60 fps

Difference of 38.8% against. hmm, what happened there.

 

between the 960 and 970 results for hardware.info and guru3d there is a variance of 6.7%. The results of the 280X show a variance of 20%.

Somebody is skewing results....

[ZetZet]

960 is a bit better than 280, and 280x is a bit better than 960. Btw, 960 wins 280x at GTA V, Project Cars and The WItcher 3. Also 960 has full suport to dx12, while 280x only supports the minimum, 11.2, and with just 2 ACE it is to see if it will able to match parallel compute performance.

280x supports dx12.

[Majestic]

yeah the whole "dx12 support" i'm steering away from. information is all over the place.

[ansauri]

Model                             Graphics Core Next Architecture        DirectX

Radeon HD 7000             GCN 1.0                                             DX12, feature level 11_1

Radeon HD 7790             GCN 1.1                                             DX12, feature level 12_0

Radeon R7 260 (X)          GCN 1.1                                             DX12, feature level 12_0

Radeon R9 270 (X)          GCN 1.0                                             DX12, feature level 11_1

Radeon R9 280 (X)          GCN 1.0                                             DX12, feature level 11_1

Radeon R9 285                GCN 1.2                                             DX12, feature level 12_0 Radeon

R9 290 (X)                        GCN 1.1                                             DX12, feature level 12_0

 

It is level 11.1 sorry.

 

 

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/directx-12-amd-radeon-feature-level-12-0-gcn/

http://wccftech.com/amd-confirms-gcn-cards-feature-full-directx-12-support-feature-level-111-gcn-10-feature-level-120-gcn-1112/

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/207598-demystifying-directx-12-support-what-amd-intel-and-nvidia-do-and-dont-deliver

[xAcid9]

I'm doing a build for a friend and wanted to know which one is better? I've heard that the r9 280x is better, and they're around the same price. Thanks guys. 

 

Performance wise, the 280x is better.