Radeon HD 7310 vs HD 8280

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1175not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.11no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameKalindiLoveland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date18 September 2013 (11 years ago)6 June 2012 (12 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 cores12880
Core clock speed450 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million450 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate3.6004.000
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs88

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).

InterfaceIGPIGP
WidthIGPIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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
+103%
HD 7310 128

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.

HD 8280 496
+90.8%
HD 7310 260

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.

HD 8280 328
+70.8%
HD 7310 192

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.

HD 8280 2515
+57.9%
HD 7310 1593

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 September 2013 6 June 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 18 Watt

HD 8280 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8280 and Radeon HD 7310. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 8280
Radeon HD 8280
AMD Radeon HD 7310
Radeon HD 7310

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.


2.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 153 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7310 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.