Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs AMD Radeon R9 280

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 730 and AMD Radeon R9 280 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

Intel UHD Graphics 730

AMD Radeon R9 280

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel UHD Graphics 730

Videocard is newer: launch date 11 year(s) 3 month(s) later
Around 39% higher boost clock speed: 1300 MHz vs 933 MHz
149.3x more texture fill rate: 15.60 GTexel/s vs 104.5 GTexel / s
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
13.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 200 Watt
Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5221 vs 3698
Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5221 vs 3698

Specifications (specs)
Launch date	2021 vs 4 March 2014
Boost clock speed	1300 MHz vs 933 MHz
Texture fill rate	15.60 GTexel/s vs 104.5 GTexel / s
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm vs 28 nm
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	15 Watt vs 200 Watt
Benchmarks
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	5221 vs 3698
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	5221 vs 3698

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280

9.3x more pipelines: 1792 vs 192
3.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5543 vs 1573
Around 62% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 667 vs 412
3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7957 vs 2429
Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3337 vs 3309
3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7957 vs 2429
Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3337 vs 3309
3.3x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2009 vs 603

Specifications (specs)
Pipelines	1792 vs 192
Benchmarks
PassMark - G3D Mark	5543 vs 1573
PassMark - G2D Mark	667 vs 412
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	7957 vs 2429
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	3337 vs 3309
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	7957 vs 2429
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	3337 vs 3309
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	2009 vs 603

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 730
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280

PassMark - G3D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

1573

5543

PassMark - G2D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

412

667

GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

2429

7957

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

5221

3698

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3309

3337

GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

2429

7957

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

5221

3698

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3309

3337

3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score

GPU 1

GPU 2

603

2009

Name	Intel UHD Graphics 730	AMD Radeon R9 280
PassMark - G3D Mark	1573	5543
PassMark - G2D Mark	412	667
Geekbench - OpenCL	5967
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	2429	7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	5221	3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	3309	3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	2429	7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	5221	3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	3309	3337
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	603	2009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)		67.829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)		1266.685
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)		6.495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)		79.909
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)		365.384

Compare specifications (specs)

	Intel UHD Graphics 730	AMD Radeon R9 280
Essentials
Architecture	Generation 12.1	GCN 1.0
Code name	Rocket Lake GT1	Tahiti
Launch date	2021	4 March 2014
Place in performance rating	633	427
Type	Desktop	Desktop
Design		AMD Radeon R9 200 Series
Launch price (MSRP)		$279
Technical info
Boost clock speed	1300 MHz	933 MHz
Compute units	24
Core clock speed	300 MHz
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance	124.8 GFLOPS (1:4)
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance	998.4 GFLOPS (2:1)
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance	499.2 GFLOPS
Pipelines	192	1792
Pixel fill rate	10.40 GPixel/s
Texture fill rate	15.60 GTexel/s	104.5 GTexel / s
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	15 Watt	200 Watt
Floating-point performance		3,344 gflops
Stream Processors		1792
Transistor count		4,313 million
Video outputs and ports
Display Connectors	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
DisplayPort support
Dual-link DVI support
Eyefinity
HDMI
VGA
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 3.0 x16
Bus support		PCIe 3.0
Length		275 mm
Supplementary power connectors		1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin
API support
DirectX	12.0 (12_1)	12
OpenCL	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
Shader Model	6.4
Vulkan
Memory
Memory bus width	64 / 128 Bit	384 Bit
Shared memory	1
Maximum RAM amount		3 GB
Memory bandwidth		240 GB/s
Memory clock speed		1250 MHz
Memory type		GDDR5
Technologies
Quick Sync
AMD Eyefinity
CrossFire
DDMA audio
FreeSync
HD3D
LiquidVR
TressFX
TrueAudio
Unified Video Decoder (UVD)