NVIDIA
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs Radeon R9 280
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 6000 and R9 280 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro RTX 6000 outperforms R9 280 by ~62% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+62%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (~62%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro RTX 6000
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL
Reasons to consider R9 280
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
8636
10060
29100
10056
Graphics card ranking
Positions 11–16of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon R9 280
137 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
86Better
36
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
68Better
32
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
66Better
30
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
60
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
76Better
47
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
Interface
Memory bus
USB Type-C
Memory type
Architecture
Device class
Process nodeBetter
Release date
VRAMBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Vulkan
Compute API
TFLOPSBetter
HDMI—
Max monitors—
Max resolution—
DirectX—
OpenGL—
Power consumption—
Power connector—
Thickness—
Launch price—
Shader units / cores—
Clock speed—
Base clock—
Boost clock—
Memory frequency—
Memory bandwidth—
Recommended PSU—
Length—
Die size—
Memory cache—
Transistor count—
Upscaling—
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Quadro RTX 6000 and R9 280 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Quadro RTX 6000R9 280
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
—
179 FPS
1080p Ultra
—
126 FPS
1440p Ultra
—
72 FPS
4K Ultra
—
24 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro RTX 6000—R9 280179 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 280126 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28072 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28024 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro RTX 6000—R9 280115 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28099 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28052 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28016 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro RTX 6000—R9 280146 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28094 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28064 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28036 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28094 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28079 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28046 FPSQuadro RTX 6000—R9 28017 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100863682%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100883879%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100904273%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001005656%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001006050%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100924569%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100924471%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100904273%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100944767%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100904273%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX—11.1
VulkanVulkan 1.31.2
OpenGL—4.6
Upscaling—Not supported
Compute APICUDA / OpenCLOpenCL 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTuringGCN 1.0
Process node12 nmBetter28 nm
Release date20182014
Device classProfDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count—4313 million
Die size—352 mm²
Shader units / cores—1792
Base clock—827 MHz
Boost clock—933 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3x16
Length—275 mm
Thickness—Dual-slot
Recommended PSU—550 W
Power connector—6+8 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMI—HDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.4DisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-C1x USB Type-CNo
Max monitors—4
Max resolution—4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM24 GBBetter3 GB GDDR5
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR5
Memory bus384-bit384 bit
TFLOPS16.3Better3.344
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 0 / 49
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Quadro RTX 6000 or R9 280?+
Quadro RTX 6000 has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 280 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro RTX 6000 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Quadro RTX 6000 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Quadro RTX 6000 offers more overall performance, while Quadro RTX 6000 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro RTX 6000 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 280 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Quadro RTX 6000 leads in combined 1440p performance. Quadro RTX 6000 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Quadro RTX 6000 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
R9 280 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
R9 280 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Quadro RTX 6000 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.