Arc A350M vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7870 XT HD 7950 HD 7950 Boost HD 7950 Mac Edition HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7970 HD 7970 GHz Edition HD 8950 OEM HD 8970 OEM R9 280 R9 280X R9 280X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A350M A370M A380M A530M A550M A570M A730M A770M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
13.08
+0.8%

R9 280 outperforms Arc A350M by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 280 R9 280
Arc A350M Arc A350M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking401403
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.64no data
Power efficiency4.9739.44
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTahitiDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (11 years ago)30 March 2022 (3 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.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 data300 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate104.555.20
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.766 TFLOPS
ROPs3224
TMUs11248
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-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s112.0 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 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 and SDK 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.

R9 280 13.08
+0.8%
Arc A350M 12.97

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
+12.2%
Arc A350M 7147

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
−2.9%
36
+2.9%
1440p16−18
+0%
16
+0%
4K9−10
+0%
9
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.97no data
1440p17.44no data
4K31.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

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%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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 45−50
+0%
45−50
+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%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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 45−50
+0%
45−50
+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 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+0%
10
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+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%
Dead Island 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dead Island 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
Dead Island 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+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
  • A tie in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.08 12.97
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

R9 280 has a 0.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A350M, 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 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 graphics card while Arc A350M is a notebook one.

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 A350M
Arc A350M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD 7990 Radeon HD 7990
Arc A350M Arc A350M
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
Radeon 760M Radeon 760M
GTX 775M Mac Edition NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition
vs
RX 570 RX 570
RX 570 AMD RX 570
vs
RX 9060 XT 16GB RX 9060 XT 16GB
GeForce 620M NVIDIA GeForce 620M
vs
RX 580 RX 580
Playstation 4 Slim GPU AMD Playstation 4 Slim GPU
vs
RX 580 RX 580
GTX 1060 3 GB GP104 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB GP104
vs
R9 370 R9 370
GT 730M NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M
vs
R7 260 R7 260
GT 730A NVIDIA GeForce GT 730A
vs
R7 260 R7 260
GTS 250 NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
vs
R9 290 R9 290
210 Rev. 2 NVIDIA GeForce 210 Rev. 2
vs
R5 240 OEM R5 240 OEM
Radeon 680M AMD Radeon 680M
vs
R5 240 OEM R5 240 OEM

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 432 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 58 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or Arc A350M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.