GeForce RTX 4080 vs Radeon HD 8280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8280 and GeForce RTX 4080, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4080 outperforms HD 8280 by a whopping 13163% 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 | 1234 | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.90 |
| Power efficiency | 3.15 | 19.59 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | AD103 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 20 September 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,199 |
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 | 128 | 9728 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 2205 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 761.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 112 |
| TMUs | 8 | 304 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 304 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 76 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | IGP | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 716.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 1−2
−22900%
| 230
+22900%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−16000%
| 161
+16000%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 105 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.21 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.45 |
| 4K | no data | 11.42 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−23000%
|
231
+23000%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−5380%
|
274
+5380%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−23000%
|
231
+23000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 223 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−6780%
|
300−350
+6780%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−5320%
|
271
+5320%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1875%
|
550−600
+1875%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1363%
|
270−280
+1363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20900%
|
210
+20900%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1975%
|
249
+1975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 218 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−6780%
|
300−350
+6780%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−4480%
|
229
+4480%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−21200%
|
213
+21200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−8983%
|
545
+8983%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1875%
|
550−600
+1875%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−18900%
|
190
+18900%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1842%
|
233
+1842%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 204 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−6780%
|
300−350
+6780%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3200%
|
165
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4200%
|
258
+4200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1954%
|
575
+1954%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−8533%
|
259
+8533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−17100%
|
500−550
+17100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−15200%
|
300−350
+15200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1133%
|
185
+1133%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10933%
|
300−350
+10933%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+0%
|
320
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 249
+0%
|
249
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 317
+0%
|
317
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 239
+0%
|
239
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 201
+0%
|
201
+0%
|
| God of War | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 191
+0%
|
191
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 227
+0%
|
227
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| God of War | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
This is how HD 8280 and RTX 4080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 is 22900% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4080 is 16000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 4080 is 23000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4080 performs better in 32 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 82.23 |
| Recency | 18 September 2013 | 20 September 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 320 Watt |
HD 8280 has 2033.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080, on the other hand, has a 13162.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8280 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
