GeForce GT 330M vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce GT 330M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
12.52
+2404%

R9 280 outperforms 330M by a whopping 2404% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4091269
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.47no data
Power efficiency5.041.75
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameTahitiGT216
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (11 years ago)10 January 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

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 cores179248
Core clock speedno data625 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate104.510.00
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS0.06528 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data182
ROPs328
TMUs11216
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KB64 KB

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 datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHzUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s25.28 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

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 managementno data8.0

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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 12.52
+2404%
GT 330M 0.50

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 5538
+2406%
Samples: 3696
GT 330M 221
Samples: 1292

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:

900p250−260
+2400%
10
−2400%
Full HD450−500
+2400%
18
−2400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.62no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

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%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

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 32 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.52 0.50
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 2404% 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.

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
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
GeForce GT 330M

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 436 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 147 votes

Rate GeForce GT 330M 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 GeForce GT 330M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.