OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon 880M review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£870VRAM:?Memory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon 880M Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

40%

5.2

Technical score

25%

5.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 89% of graphics cards
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 81%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

5.2

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon 880M

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components:

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

6.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,194 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,194 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 92.8% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,480 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,480 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 80.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,723 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,723 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 89.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
8,162 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 8,162 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 70.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
4.45 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 4.45 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 88.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
?
Memory type
N/A
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
120 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 120 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,500 MHz, which is slower than that of 88.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
2.1
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is more advanced than on 66.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
10 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 10 Gbps, which is slower than on 63.5% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
15 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
?
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
15 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
15 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon 880M vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 4.29x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 4.29x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • 13 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (54 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    54 °C vs 67 °C
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 73.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 23.9% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon 880M has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.99 vs 7.4).
    5.99 vs 7.41
  • 67.3% more expensive
    AMD Radeon 880M is more expensive than the average graphics card (£870 vs £520).
    £870 vs £520
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 63.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (139.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    139.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 71.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (46.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    46.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 80.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (4.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    4.45 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 132 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    12 vs 144
  • 65.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,723 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,723 points vs 22,638 points
  • 78.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,194 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,194 points vs 14,779 points
  • 83.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,480 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,480 points vs 9,148 points
  • 69.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    8.91 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 73.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 60.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Team Pandory
≈ estimated
15/09/2025
Hands-on review · mini PC build, noise and game tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 880M is a small step forward rather than a major leap, though the mini PC is solid overall.
8.0
UFD Tech
≈ estimated
11/08/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks on a thin laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 880M offers strong gaming performance for an integrated GPU, but laptop pricing and inconsistent power modes hold it back.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

tweakers.net
28/07/2024
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon 880M

  • Delivers approximately 15% better performance than the previous-gen Radeon 780M in benchmarks like Time Spy
  • Excellent power efficiency, consuming only 10W to 20W while rivaling entry-level desktop performance
  • Capable of running modern esports and casual titles smoothly at 1080p
  • Supports modern features including Ray Tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and AV1 video encoding
  • Ideal for slim ultrabook designs due to low heat and power requirements

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon 880M

  • Significant performance drop-off in demanding AAA titles, often requiring low settings or 720p upscaling
  • Notably slower than its sibling, the Radeon 890M, which features more compute units
  • Lacks hardware support for the VVC codec, unlike some newer Intel competitors
  • Performance is highly dependent on system RAM speeds and TDP limits set by the laptop manufacturer
  • Does not support AI-powered upscaling like NVIDIA's DLSS, though it supports AMD FSR

Verdict

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics solution based on the 4nm RDNA 3.5 architecture (Strix Point), featuring 12 compute units, 768 shading units, 12 raytracing cores, and a boost clock speed reaching up to 2,900 MHz. Its primary pros include highly power-efficient operation at a 15W to 54W TDP configuration, DirectX 12 Ultimate hardware raytracing support, and robust casual gaming capabilities delivering a ~15% performance uplift over its predecessor. However, its cons include performance strictly throttled by the lack of dedicated VRAM due to its shared system memory dependency, lower peak performance compared to its sibling Radeon 890M, and a complete lack of hardware acceleration support for the emerging VVC video codec.

Compare AMD Radeon 880M with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon 880M and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found