Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 vs HD 8280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8280 and Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6450 GDDR5 outperforms HD 8280 by a considerable 44% 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 | 1259 | 1189 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.18 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | Caicos |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 September 2013 (12 years ago) | 18 April 2011 (14 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 cores | 128 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 27 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 | IGP | no data |
| Width | IGP | no 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 type | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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:
| 900p | 4−5
−75%
| 7
+75%
|
| Full HD | 10−12
−50%
| 15
+50%
|
| 1200p | 3−4
−66.7%
| 5
+66.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−52.6%
|
29
+52.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8280 and HD 6450 GDDR5 compete in popular games:
- HD 6450 GDDR5 is 75% faster in 900p
- HD 6450 GDDR5 is 50% faster in 1080p
- HD 6450 GDDR5 is 67% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6450 GDDR5 is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6450 GDDR5 performs better in 13 tests (37%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (63%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 18 September 2013 | 18 April 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 27 Watt |
HD 8280 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.
HD 6450 GDDR5, on the other hand, has a 43.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 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.
