GeForce 320M vs Radeon HD 8280

Place in the ranking	1175	1217
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.11	1.64
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Kalindi	C89
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	18 September 2013 (11 years ago)	1 April 2010 (14 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 cores	128	48
Core clock speed	450 MHz	450 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.600	7.200
Floating-point processing power	0.1152 TFLOPS	0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	16

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).

Interface	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Width	IGP	no 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 type	System Shared	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	System Shared
Memory bus width	System Shared	System Shared
Memory clock speed	System Shared	System Shared
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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.3	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	N/A
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A

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.

HD 8280 0.67
+24.1%

GeForce 320M 0.54

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.

HD 8280 260
+24.4%

GeForce 320M 209

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
+20%

−20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

This is how HD 8280 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

HD 8280 is 20% 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 HD 8280 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 8280 is ahead in 4 tests (11%)
there's a draw in 31 test (89%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.67	0.54
Recency	18 September 2013	1 April 2010
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	23 Watt

HD 8280 has a 24.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 8280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8280 is a desktop card while GeForce 320M is a notebook one.

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