Your Graphics Research
Your Graphics Research
| Recommended System Requirements | ||
|---|---|---|
| Game | GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition | Radeon R9 280X Crossfire |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32% | 5% |
| Hitman 3 | 11% | 36% |
| Assassins Creed: Valhalla | 37% | 4% |
| Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War | 39% | 7% |
| FIFA 21 | 66% | 47% |
| Grand Theft Auto VI | 4% | 47% |
| Far Cry 6 | 1% | 52% |
| Genshin Impact | 32% | 5% |
| Battlefield 6 | 11% | 36% |
| Resident Evil 8 | 32% | 5% |
In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition are significantly better than the AMD Radeon R9 280X Crossfire.
The GTX 1080 has a 795 MHz higher core clock speed but 96 fewer Texture Mapping Units than the R9 280X. The lower TMU count doesn't matter, though, as altogether the GTX 1080 manages to provide 45.6 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.
The GTX 1080 has a 795 MHz higher core clock speed than the R9 280X and the same number of Render Output Units. This results in the GTX 1080 providing 50.9 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
The GTX 1080 was released over a year more recently than the R9 280X, and so the GTX 1080 is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the R9 280X.
Both GPUs exhibit very powerful performance, so it probably isn't worth upgrading from one to the other, as both are capable of running even the most demanding games at the highest settings.
The GTX 1080 has 2048 MB more video memory than the R9 280X, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. However, overall, the R9 280X has superior memory performance.
The R9 280X has 255.7 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the GTX 1080, which means that the memory performance of the R9 280X is massively better than the GTX 1080.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition has 2560 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon R9 280X Crossfire has 4096. However, the actual shader performance of the GTX 1080 is 6166. The GTX 1080 having 2070 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the R9 280X performs better when taking into account other relevant data.
The GTX 1080 transistor size technology is 12 nm (nanometers) smaller than the R9 280X. This means that the GTX 1080 is expected to run slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the R9 280X.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition requires 200 Watts to run and the Radeon R9 280X Crossfire requires 550 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 500 Watts for the GTX 1080 and a PSU with at least 1000 Watts for the R9 280X. The R9 280X requires 350 Watts more than the GTX 1080 to run. The difference is significant enough that the R9 280X may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the GTX 1080.
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 67.9 FPS on Tom Clancys Ghost Recon Wildlands
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 103.8 FPS on Star Wars: Jedi - Fallen Order
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 106.7 FPS on Mount and Blade 2: Bannerlord
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 154.3 FPS on Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 35.4 FPS on Star Wars: Jedi - Fallen Order
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 66.2 FPS on Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 46.4 FPS on Tom Clancys Ghost Recon Wildlands
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 73.1 FPS on Star Wars: Jedi - Fallen Order
GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition gets 101.5 FPS on Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
| Core Speed | 1645 MHz |  | vs | 850 MHz | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boost Clock | 1784 MHz | | vs | 1000 MHz | |
| Architecture | Pascal P104-400-A1 | GCN 1.1 Tahiti XTL (x2) | |||
| OC Potential | Fair | vs |
| Fair | |
| Driver Support | Great |
| vs | - | |
| Release Date | 27 May 2016 | | vs | 01 Oct 2013 | |
| GPU Link | GD Link | GD Link | |||
| Approved | | | |||
| Comparison | |||||
| 1366x768 | 10
|
|
vs | - | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1600x900 | 10
|
|
vs | - | |
| 1920x1080 | 10
|
|
vs | |
10
|
| 2560x1440 | 9.6
|
|
vs | - | |
| 3840x2160 | 7.6
|
|
vs | - | |
| Memory | 8192 MB | | vs | 6144 MB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memory Speed | 1251 MHz | vs | | 1500 MHz | |
| Memory Bus | 256 Bit | vs | | 768 Bit | |
| Memory Type | GDDR5X | | vs | | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 320.3GB/sec | vs | | 576GB/sec | |
| L2 Cache | 2048 KB | |
vs | 1536 KB | |
| Delta Color Compression | yes | vs | no | ||
| Memory Performance | 0% | |
vs | |
0% |
| Comparison | |||||
| Shader Processing Units | 2560 | vs | | 4096 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Shader Performance | 100% | | vs | | 100% |
| Technology | 16nm | | vs | 28nm | |
| Texture Mapping Units | 160 | vs | | 256 | |
| Texture Rate | 263.2 GTexel/s | | vs | 217.6 GTexel/s | |
| Render Output Units | 64 | | vs | | 64 |
| Pixel Rate | 105.3 GPixel/s | | vs | 54.4 GPixel/s | |
| Comparison | |||||
| Max Digital Resolution (WxH) | 7680x4320 | | vs | 4096x2160 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGA Connections | 0 | vs | 0 | ||
| DVI Connections | 1 | | vs | 0 | |
| HDMI Connections | 1 | | vs | 0 | |
| DisplayPort Connections | 3 | | vs | - | |
| Comparison | |||||
| Max Power | 200 Watts | | vs | 550 Watts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended PSU | 500 Watts & 33 Amps | | vs | 1000 Watts & 42 Amps | |
| DirectX | 12.1 | | vs | 11.2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shader Model | 5.0 | | vs | | 5.0 |
| Open GL | 4.5 | | vs | 4.3 | |
| Open CL | - | vs | - | ||
| Notebook GPU | no | no | |||
| SLI/Crossfire | yes | | vs | no | |
| Dedicated | yes | | vs | | yes |
| Comparison | |||||
| Recommended Processor | Intel Core i7-6700K 4-Core 4.0GHz | vs | | Intel Core i7-3770K 4-Core 3.5GHz | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended RAM | 16 GB | vs | | 8 GB | |
| Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution | 2560x1600 | | vs | 1920x1080 | |
| Performance Value |  | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mini Review | Overview GeForce GTX 1080 Palit GameRock 8GB Edition of NVIDIA's High-End GeForce GTX 1080, created by Palit. Overclock: Central Unit The Central Unit has been increased from 1607MHz to 1645MHz, whereas the Boost Clock can now achieve 1784MHz, instead of 1733MHz. Overclock: Memory Clock None. Frame Buffer Untouched. Cooling Solution Dual Fan: A Dual Fan design offers double the cooling performance, and combined with the 10CM-10CM Smart Fans, heat is effectively drawn away from hot spots. Performance At 1920x1080, Benchmarks Indicate a 2% Performance Boost over the Reference GeForce GTX 1080. This goes up to 4% at 3840x2160. | Radeon R9 280X Crossfire is a solution of two Radeon R9 280X put together using AMD'S Crossfire technology. Check the page of Radeon R9 280X to know more about its chip. Crossfire relies a lot on proper driver support and may suffer from micro-stuttering in lower frame rates (below 30). Benchmarks indicate the performance is overall, is up to 60% better than a single Radeon R9 280X performing by itself but at times (depending whether or not the 3D game supports crossfire or in the graphics driver) it performed worse than a single Radeon R9 280X. Expect this combination to draw up to 550 Watt though the average power consumption should be slightly lower. Even the most demanding games will run at the highest settings. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended CPU | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possible GPU Upgrades | - | - | |||
| GPU Variants | - | - | |||