Radeon R7 M275DX vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon R7 M275DX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 M275DX outperforms GTX 280M SLI by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 703 | 696 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.04 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Current price | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 256 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon R7 M275DX compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | no 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.
| Eyefinity | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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.
Radeon R7 M275DX outperforms GeForce GTX 280M SLI by 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI outperforms Radeon R7 M275DX by 14% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 24−27
−8.3%
| 26
+8.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 280M SLI and R7 M275DX compete in popular games:
- R7 M275DX is 8% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.34 | 3.37 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 4 June 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon R7 M275DX.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
