Arc A310 vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.42
+1.1%

R9 280 outperforms Arc A310 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking365368
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.30no data
Power efficiency4.9613.09
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTahitiDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1792768
Core clock speedno data2000 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate104.564.00
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s124.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3

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.

R9 280 14.42
+1.1%
Arc A310 14.27

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.

R9 280 5557
+1%
Arc A310 5502

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.

R9 280 8020
Arc A310 8464
+5.5%

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 HD35−40
−5.7%
37
+5.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65
+0%
65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 54
+0%
54
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how R9 280 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 6% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.42 14.27
Recency 4 March 2014 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 75 Watt

R9 280 has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 280 and Arc A310.


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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
Intel Arc A310
Arc A310

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.


3.6 396 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 254 votes

Rate Arc A310 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.