GeForce GTX 280M vs FirePro W8100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
W2100 W4000 W4100 W4300 W5000 W5100 W7000 W7100 W8000 W8100 W9000 W9100
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
260M 260M SLI 280M 280M SLI 285M 285M SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W8100 with GeForce GTX 280M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W8100
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 220 Watt
16.29
+1089%

W8100 outperforms 280M by a whopping 1089% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
GTX 280M GTX 280M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3641050
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.701.41
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameHawaiiG92B
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 June 2014 (11 years ago)3 March 2009 (17 years ago)

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 cores2560128
Core clock speed824 MHz585 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)220 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate131.837.44
Floating-point processing power4.219 TFLOPS0.3745 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data562
ROPs6416
TMUs16064
L1 Cache640 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KB64 KB

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-HE
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options-+
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHzUp to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/s61 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x SDIHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-
HD сomponent video output+-
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FirePro W8100 16.29
+1089%
GTX 280M 1.37

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.

FirePro W8100 6812
+946%
Samples: 59
GTX 280M 651
Samples: 66

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 16.29 1.37
Recency 23 June 2014 3 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 220 Watt 75 Watt

FirePro W8100 has a 1089% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 280M, on the other hand, has 193% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W8100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
P106-100 P106 100
GTX 280M GeForce GTX 280M
vs
GeForce 720A GeForce 720A
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
FirePro S9150 FirePro S9150
vs
Pro VII Radeon Pro VII
FirePro S9150 FirePro S9150
vs
A100 PCIe 80 GB A100 PCIe 80 GB
FirePro S9150 FirePro S9150
vs
PRO W9070 Radeon PRO W9070
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
Quadro K610M Quadro K610M
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
GTX 680 GeForce GTX 680
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
GT 320M GeForce GT 320M
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
FX 380M Quadro FX 380M
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
Go 6200 GeForce Go 6200
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600
FirePro W8100 FirePro W8100
vs
HD 7670A Radeon HD 7670A

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 22 votes

Rate FirePro W8100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W8100 or GeForce GTX 280M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.