Arc A350M vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A350M outperforms R9 280 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 ranking | 375 | 371 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.95 | 39.86 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1792 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 55.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 1.766 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 112 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 35−40
−2.9%
| 36
+2.9%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−14.3%
| 16
+14.3%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−12.5%
| 9
+12.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.97 | no data |
| 1440p | 19.93 | no data |
| 4K | 34.88 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how R9 280 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:
- Arc A350M is 3% faster in 1080p
- Arc A350M is 14% faster in 1440p
- Arc A350M is 13% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.42 | 12.51 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 25 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 700% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 280 and Arc A350M.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Arc A350M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
