GeForce2 Go vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce2 Go, including specs and performance data.
R9 280 outperforms by a whopping 130600% 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 | 416 | 1580 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.06 | 0.39 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Celsius (1999−2005) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | NV11 B2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 11 November 2000 (24 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 143 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 20 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 0.57 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 2 |
| TMUs | 112 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
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 | AGP 4x |
| 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 166 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 5.312 GB/s |
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 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.07 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 11 November 2000 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 2 Watt |
R9 280 has a 130600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce2 Go, on the other hand, has 9900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce2 Go in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce2 Go 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.
