Radeon HD 8670M vs R9 280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Radeon HD 8670M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.46
+971%

R9 280 outperforms HD 8670M by a whopping 971% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3621023
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.44no data
Power efficiency4.99no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameTahitiSun
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1792320
Core clock speedno data925 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz975 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million690 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Wattno data
Texture fill rate104.519.50
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS0.624 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs11220

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s16 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 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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 280 14.46
+971%
HD 8670M 1.35

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 5559
+969%
HD 8670M 520

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
+867%
HD 8670M 829

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 HD120−130
+900%
12
−900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.33no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how R9 280 and HD 8670M compete in popular games:

  • R9 280 is 900% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.46 1.35
Recency 4 March 2014 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB

R9 280 has a 971.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8670M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 8670M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
AMD Radeon HD 8670M
Radeon HD 8670M

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.


3.6 410 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 248 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8670M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.