AMD
Radeon R9 280 vs Intel Arc A350M
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Intel Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared R9 280 and Intel Arc A350M across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R9 280 outperforms Intel Arc A350M by ~9% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+9%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon R9 280 (~7%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider R9 280
- Higher catalog performance index
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Intel Arc A350M
- More graphics memory
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
IntelPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3633
60100
10055
5660
Graphics card ranking
Positions 230–235of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Intel Arc A350M
138 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
36Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
32Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
30Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
60
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
47Better
44
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSU
Length
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Transistor countBetter
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares R9 280 and Intel Arc A350M across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
R9 280Intel Arc A350M
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
179 FPS
164 FPS
1080p Ultra
126 FPS
116 FPS
1440p Ultra
72 FPS
62 FPS
4K Ultra
24 FPS
22 FPS
Counter-Strike 2R9 280179 FPSIntel Arc A350M164 FPSR9 280126 FPSIntel Arc A350M116 FPSR9 28072 FPSIntel Arc A350M62 FPSR9 28024 FPSIntel Arc A350M22 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077R9 280115 FPSIntel Arc A350M106 FPSR9 28099 FPSIntel Arc A350M91 FPSR9 28052 FPSIntel Arc A350M45 FPSR9 28016 FPSIntel Arc A350M15 FPS
Forza Horizon 5R9 280146 FPSIntel Arc A350M134 FPSR9 28094 FPSIntel Arc A350M87 FPSR9 28064 FPSIntel Arc A350M56 FPSR9 28036 FPSIntel Arc A350M33 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyR9 28094 FPSIntel Arc A350M87 FPSR9 28079 FPSIntel Arc A350M72 FPSR9 28046 FPSIntel Arc A350M40 FPSR9 28017 FPSIntel Arc A350M15 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10036339%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100384312%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10042412%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10056607%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1006010050%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10045450%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10044440%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10042412%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10047482%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10042412%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX11.112.2
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedXeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.2OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 1.0Xe HPG (Alchemist)
Process node28 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20142022
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count4313 million7200 millionBetter
Die size352 mm²157 mm²Better
Shader units / cores1792Better768
Base clock827 MHz1150 MHzBetter
Boost clock933 MHz2200 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length275 mmOEM dependent
ThicknessDual-slotIGP
Recommended PSU550 WOEM dependent
Power connector6+8 pinIntegrated laptop power
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 1.4aOEM dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.2OEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors4OEM dependent
Max resolution4096 × 2160Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM3 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR6Better
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Memory bus384 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS3.3443.379Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 69
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: R9 280 or Intel Arc A350M?+
R9 280 has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 280 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
R9 280 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
R9 280 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
R9 280 offers more overall performance, while R9 280 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
R9 280 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 280 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
R9 280 leads in combined 1440p performance. R9 280 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
R9 280 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Intel Arc A350M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Intel Arc A350M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to R9 280 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.