GeForce GTX 765M vs GTX 280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280 with GeForce GTX 765M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 280
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 236 Watt
3.37

GTX 765M outperforms GTX 280 by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking732616
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.11no data
Power efficiency0.994.80
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT200GK106
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)30 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores240768
Core clock speed602 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data863 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)236 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate48.1655.23
Floating-point processing power0.6221 TFLOPS1.326 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8064

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 supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data
SLI options++

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1107 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth141.7 GB/s64.0 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 ConnectorsHDTVDual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

GTX 280 3.37
GTX 765M 5.18
+53.7%

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.

GTX 280 1299
GTX 765M 1997
+53.7%

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:

900p30−35
−70%
51
+70%
Full HD24−27
−62.5%
39
+62.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p27.04no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how GTX 280 and GTX 765M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 765M is 70% faster in 900p
  • GTX 765M is 63% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.37 5.18
Recency 16 June 2008 30 May 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 236 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 765M has a 53.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 214.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 765M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 765M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 280
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
GeForce GTX 765M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.6 105 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 74 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 765M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.