GeForce GTX 280 vs Radeon 8060S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8060S with GeForce GTX 280, including specs and performance data.
8060S outperforms GTX 280 by a whopping 1276% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 99 | 785 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 58.51 | 0.99 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Strix Halo | GT200 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 16 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 2560 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2335 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 236 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 373.6 | 48.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.96 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| 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 type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1107 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 141.7 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 | 109
+1457%
| 7−8
−1457%
|
| 1440p | 58
+1350%
| 4−5
−1350%
|
| 4K | 35
+1650%
| 2−3
−1650%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 92.71 |
| 1440p | no data | 162.25 |
| 4K | no data | 324.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+1344%
|
16−18
−1344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1343%
|
7−8
−1343%
|
| God of War | 117
+1363%
|
8−9
−1363%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+1300%
|
10−11
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 215
+1436%
|
14−16
−1436%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1343%
|
7−8
−1343%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+1414%
|
7−8
−1414%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+1417%
|
12−14
−1417%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1540%
|
10−11
−1540%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 201
+1336%
|
14−16
−1336%
|
| God of War | 96
+1500%
|
6−7
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1530%
|
10−11
−1530%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+1406%
|
16−18
−1406%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+1300%
|
10−11
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+1457%
|
7−8
−1457%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1444%
|
18−20
−1444%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1343%
|
7−8
−1343%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+1386%
|
7−8
−1386%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+1417%
|
12−14
−1417%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1540%
|
10−11
−1540%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 182
+1417%
|
12−14
−1417%
|
| God of War | 76
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+1311%
|
9−10
−1311%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+1371%
|
7−8
−1371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1530%
|
10−11
−1530%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 218
+1457%
|
14−16
−1457%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+1406%
|
16−18
−1406%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+1300%
|
10−11
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1343%
|
7−8
−1343%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1540%
|
10−11
−1540%
|
| God of War | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1530%
|
10−11
−1530%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 114
+1325%
|
8−9
−1325%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 180−190
+1417%
|
12−14
−1417%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 71
+1320%
|
5−6
−1320%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 290−300
+1319%
|
21−24
−1319%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+1500%
|
4−5
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+1411%
|
18−20
−1411%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1289%
|
9−10
−1289%
|
| God of War | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+1317%
|
6−7
−1317%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+1338%
|
8−9
−1338%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+1333%
|
18−20
−1333%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1300%
|
6−7
−1300%
|
| God of War | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
This is how Radeon 8060S and GTX 280 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8060S is 1457% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8060S is 1350% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 8060S is 1650% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 42.24 | 3.07 |
| Recency | 6 January 2025 | 16 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 236 Watt |
Radeon 8060S has a 1275.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 329.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8060S is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 8060S is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 280 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
