Radeon HD 8280 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Radeon HD 8280, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1650 SUPER
2019
4 GB GDDR6, 100 Watt
26.34
+3831%

GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms HD 8280 by a whopping 3831% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2071178
Place by popularity56not in top-100
Power efficiency18.333.11
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameTU116Kalindi
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date22 November 2019 (5 years ago)18 September 2013 (11 years ago)

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 cores1280128
Core clock speed1530 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1725 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate138.03.600
Floating-point processing power4.416 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs808

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16IGP
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed12000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready+no data
Multi Monitor+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.56.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.34
+3831%
HD 8280 0.67

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 10163
+3809%
HD 8280 260

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1650 SUPER 18225
+3574%
HD 8280 496

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 12206
+3621%
HD 8280 328

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1650 SUPER 68199
+2612%
HD 8280 2515

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 HD70
+6900%
1−2
−6900%
1440p350−1
4K210−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 63
+2000%
3−4
−2000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 53
+5200%
1−2
−5200%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+4200%
2−3
−4200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+6700%
1−2
−6700%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+4933%
3−4
−4933%
Hitman 3 62
+1140%
5−6
−1140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+991%
10−12
−991%
Metro Exodus 69
+6800%
1−2
−6800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 84 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95
+1400%
6−7
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180
+500%
30−33
−500%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 26 0−1
Battlefield 5 85−90
+4200%
2−3
−4200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+6700%
1−2
−6700%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+4933%
3−4
−4933%
Hitman 3 59
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+991%
10−12
−991%
Metro Exodus 82
+4000%
2−3
−4000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
+1583%
6−7
−1583%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+460%
10−11
−460%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180
+500%
30−33
−500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+4933%
3−4
−4933%
Hitman 3 53
+960%
5−6
−960%
Horizon Zero Dawn 83
+655%
10−12
−655%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 83
+1283%
6−7
−1283%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+400%
10−11
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
−42.9%
30−33
+42.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 66 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+3900%
1−2
−3900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+4933%
3−4
−4933%
Hitman 3 34
+467%
6−7
−467%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+1900%
3−4
−1900%
Metro Exodus 55
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 164
+8100%
2−3
−8100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 44
+1367%
3−4
−1367%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 34 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+4367%
3−4
−4367%
Metro Exodus 32 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21
+950%
2−3
−950%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and HD 8280 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 SUPER is 6900% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 8100% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8280 is 43% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • HD 8280 is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.34 0.67
Recency 22 November 2019 18 September 2013
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 1650 SUPER has a 3831.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

HD 8280, on the other hand, has 566.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8280 in performance tests.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
AMD Radeon HD 8280
Radeon HD 8280

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.1 4704 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8280 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.