GeForce GTX 280M vs 1080
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 with GeForce GTX 280M, including specs and performance data.
1080 outperforms 280M by a whopping 2603% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 96 | 942 |
Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.35 | no data |
Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | G9x (2007−2010) |
GPU code name | Pascal GP104 | N10E-GTX |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 6 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 128 |
CUDA cores | 2560 | 128 |
Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 585 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 754 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 75 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 37.44 |
Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | 374.5 gflops |
Floating-point performance | 8.873 gflops | 0.3745 gflops |
Gigaflops | no data | 562 |
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 size | no data | large |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-IV |
Length | 267 mm | no data |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
SLI options | + | + |
MXM Type | no data | MXM 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 type | GDDR5X | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | Up to 950 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 61 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 (so-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.
Display Connectors | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
G-SYNC support | + | - |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
Power management | no data | 8.0 |
VR Ready | + | no data |
Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
Full HD | 128
+3100%
| 4−5
−3100%
|
1440p | 79
+3850%
| 2−3
−3850%
|
4K | 59
+2850%
| 2−3
−2850%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 92
+1433%
|
6−7
−1433%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
Battlefield 5 | 145
+2800%
|
5−6
−2800%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 105
+2525%
|
4−5
−2525%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
Far Cry 5 | 123
+6050%
|
2−3
−6050%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 135
+3275%
|
4−5
−3275%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 320
+7900%
|
4−5
−7900%
|
Hitman 3 | 85−90
+1333%
|
6−7
−1333%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 160−170
+1013%
|
14−16
−1013%
|
Metro Exodus | 144
+2780%
|
5−6
−2780%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 114
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 186
+2225%
|
8−9
−2225%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 130−140
+294%
|
30−35
−294%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 137
+2183%
|
6−7
−2183%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
Battlefield 5 | 128
+3100%
|
4−5
−3100%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 95
+2275%
|
4−5
−2275%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
Far Cry 5 | 98
+4800%
|
2−3
−4800%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 105
+2525%
|
4−5
−2525%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 291
+7175%
|
4−5
−7175%
|
Hitman 3 | 85−90
+1333%
|
6−7
−1333%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 160−170
+1013%
|
14−16
−1013%
|
Metro Exodus | 131
+3175%
|
4−5
−3175%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 109
+3533%
|
3−4
−3533%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+1750%
|
8−9
−1750%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 152
+1282%
|
10−12
−1282%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 130−140
+294%
|
30−35
−294%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 63
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 71
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1675%
|
4−5
−1675%
|
Far Cry 5 | 75
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+2700%
|
4−5
−2700%
|
Hitman 3 | 85−90
+1333%
|
6−7
−1333%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 121
+707%
|
14−16
−707%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+1750%
|
8−9
−1750%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+636%
|
10−12
−636%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 130−140
+294%
|
30−35
−294%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 105
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 89
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 51 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 53
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 282
+2720%
|
10−11
−2720%
|
Hitman 3 | 50−55
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 92
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
Metro Exodus | 82
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 95−100
+3167%
|
3−4
−3167%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 190−200
+2686%
|
7−8
−2686%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 81
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
Hitman 3 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 180−190
+2983%
|
6−7
−2983%
|
Metro Exodus | 47
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 29 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 27 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 42
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
This is how GTX 1080 and GTX 280M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 is 3100% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 is 3850% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 is 2850% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1080 is 7900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1080 surpassed GTX 280M in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 40.27 | 1.49 |
Recency | 6 May 2016 | 2 March 2009 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1080 has a 2602.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 243.8% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 280M, on the other hand, has 140% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.