Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GTX 280M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
8800M GTS 8800M GTX 9800M GT 9800M GTX GTX 260M GTX 280M GTX 285M
VS
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) Radeon R5 (Carrizo) Radeon R5 (Kaveri) Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 280M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.50

R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GTX 280M by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GTX 280M GTX 280M
R5 (Carrizo) R5 (Carrizo)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking991930
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.373.60
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameG92Carrizo
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2015 (9 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 cores128256
Core clock speed585 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors754 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate37.44no data
Floating-point processing power0.3745 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops562no data
ROPs16no data
TMUs64no 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).

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IVno data
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth61 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 ConnectorsHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGAno data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Fortnite 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 1−2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
−5.7%
35−40
+5.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
−16.1%
35−40
+16.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Dota 2 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Fortnite 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 1−2
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Valorant 35−40
−5.7%
35−40
+5.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Dota 2 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 1−2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Valorant 35−40
−5.7%
35−40
+5.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Valorant 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 37 tests (70%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.50 1.84
Recency 3 March 2009 4 June 2015
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 12 Watt

R5 (Carrizo) has a 22.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 525% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.

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 280M
GeForce GTX 280M
AMD Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 280M GeForce GTX 280M
vs
R7 M360 Radeon R7 M360
R5 (Carrizo) Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 640M LE GeForce GT 640M LE
GTX 280M GeForce GTX 280M
vs
HD 8550M Radeon HD 8550M
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GeForce 920MX 920MX
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 645M 645M
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 640M 640M
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GeForce 710M 710M
GT 625M NVIDIA GT 625M
vs
R5 (Carrizo) (Carrizo)
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GTX 260M 260M
9800M GT GeForce 9800M GT
vs
R5 (Carrizo) (Carrizo)
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 445M 445M
R5 (Carrizo) AMD R5 (Carrizo)
vs
9800M GS 9800M GS
GTS 150M NVIDIA GTS 150M
vs
R5 (Carrizo) (Carrizo)

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 280M or Radeon R5 (Carrizo), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.