GeForce GT 330M vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce GT 330M, including specs and performance data.
R9 280 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 2416% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 399 | 1258 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.56 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.00 | 1.73 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (15 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.
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 cores | 1792 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 0.06528 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 182 |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 25.28 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
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 |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 250−260
+2400%
| 10
−2400%
|
| Full HD | 450−500
+2400%
| 18
−2400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.62 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R9 280 and GT 330M compete in popular games:
- R9 280 is 2400% faster in 900p
- R9 280 is 2400% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 28 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.83 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 10 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 23 Watt |
R9 280 has a 2415.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 330M, on the other hand, has 769.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 330M 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.
