Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GTX 280M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 280M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.49

R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GTX 280M by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking976915
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.383.66
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameG92Carrizo
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2015 (9 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 cores128256
Core clock speed585 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors754 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate37.44no data
Floating-point processing power0.3745 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops562no data
ROPs16no data
TMUs64no data

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IVno data
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno data

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth61 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGAno data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 32 tests (63%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (37%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 1.84
Recency 3 March 2009 4 June 2015
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 12 Watt

R5 (Carrizo) has a 23.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 525% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.


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 280M
GeForce GTX 280M
AMD Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Radeon R5 (Carrizo)

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.


4.1 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Carrizo) 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.