GeForce GTX 280M vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with GeForce GTX 280M, including specs and performance data.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
3.04
+104%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GTX 280M by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking771980
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.36
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreG92
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 January 2014 (10 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 cores512128
Core clock speed720 MHz585 MHz
Number of transistorsno data754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data37.44
Floating-point processing powerno data0.3745 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data562
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data64

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataMXM-IV
SLI options-+
MXM Typeno dataMXM 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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data61 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 Connectorsno dataHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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 HD18
+125%
8−9
−125%

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 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+145%
10−12
−145%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
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 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
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 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 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
Far Cry 5 1−2 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 R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GTX 280M compete in popular games:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 125% 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 R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 300% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 280M is 83% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 47 tests (96%)
  • GTX 280M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.04 1.49
Recency 14 January 2014 3 March 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 104% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook one.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M
GeForce GTX 280M

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.


3.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280M 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.