GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon R9 280

Place in the ranking	361	1072
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.26	no data
Power efficiency	4.99	5.17
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Tahiti	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	23 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1792	96
Core clock speed	no data	Up to 625 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	715 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	10.56
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	0.2534 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	112	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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	Up to 128bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	Up to 28.8 GB/s
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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	Up to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
3D Blu-Ray	-	+
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 API
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

R9 280 14.40
+1186%

GT 620M 1.12

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.

R9 280 5555
+1180%

GT 620M 434

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.

R9 280 8020
+987%

GT 620M 738

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

450−500
+1116%

−1116%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

0.62

no data

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	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

This is how R9 280 and GT 620M compete in popular games:

R9 280 is 1116% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.40	1.12
Recency	4 March 2014	23 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt

R9 280 has a 1185.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 620M, on the other hand, has 1233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 620M is a notebook one.

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