GeForce GTX 280M vs Radeon HD 8790M

Place in the ranking	731	978
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	1.38
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Mars	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)	3 March 2009 (15 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	384	128
Core clock speed	850 MHz	585 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	950 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	21.60	37.44
Floating-point processing power	0.6912 TFLOPS	0.3745 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	562
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	64

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 size	medium sized	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-IV
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	-	+
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	Up to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	61 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 Connectors	No outputs	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	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. 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.

HD 8790M 3.38
+127%

GTX 280M 1.49

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.

HD 8790M 1305
+127%

GTX 280M 575

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 8790M 9835
+47.4%

GTX 280M 6672

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

27
+170%

10−12

−170%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +60%	14−16 −60%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +21.2%	30−35 −21.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +60%	14−16 −60%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +21.2%	30−35 −21.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +60%	14−16 −60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +21.2%	30−35 −21.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

This is how HD 8790M and GTX 280M compete in popular games:

HD 8790M is 170% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8790M is 375% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 8790M is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.38	1.49
Recency	1 April 2013	3 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm

HD 8790M has a 126.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8790M 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.