Radeon HD 8280E vs UHD Graphics 600

Place in performance ranking	1093	1162
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.63	0.01
Architecture	Gen. 9 Gemini Lake (2017)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Gemini Lake	Kalindi
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	11 December 2017 (6 years ago)	23 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Current price	$274	$59

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

UHD Graphics 600 has 6200% better value for money than HD 8280E.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	12	128
Core clock speed	300 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	700 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	5 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	9.000	3.600

Form factor & compatibility

Information on UHD Graphics 600 and Radeon HD 8280E compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	IGP
Width	no data	IGP

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	DDR4 / LPDDR4	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	System Shared
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	System Shared	System Shared
Shared memory	+	no data

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

No outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

UHD Graphics 600 0.86
+41%

HD 8280E 0.61

UHD Graphics 600 outperforms Radeon HD 8280E by 41% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

UHD Graphics 600 334
+41.5%

HD 8280E 236

UHD Graphics 600 outperforms Radeon HD 8280E by 42% in Passmark.

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 HD

11
+57.1%

7−8

−57.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6 +50%	4−5 −50%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3 +50%	2−3 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1