AMD Radeon R9 270X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD Radeon R9 270X und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher, Technologien. Benchmark-Videokarten Leistungsanalyse: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, 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), 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, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 2% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1050 MHz vs 1033 MHz
- Etwa 11% höhere Leitungssysteme: 1280 vs 1152
- Etwa 13% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 2,688 gflops vs 2,378 gflops
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 vs 4803
- Etwa 15% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 vs 532
- Etwa 70% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 vs 37.505
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 vs 864.402
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 vs 3.09
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 vs 40.457
- 3.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 vs 84.186
- Etwa 16% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 vs 6927
- Etwa 16% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 vs 6927
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 vs 1659
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 8 October 2013 vs 25 June 2013 |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1050 MHz vs 1033 MHz |
Leitungssysteme | 1280 vs 1152 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,688 gflops vs 2,378 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 vs 4803 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 vs 532 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 vs 37.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 vs 864.402 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 vs 3.09 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 vs 40.457 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 vs 84.186 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 vs 6927 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 vs 6927 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 vs 1659 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
- Etwa 12% höhere Texturfüllrate: 94.1 billion / sec vs 84 GTexel / s
- Etwa 6% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 170 Watt vs 180 Watt
Spezifikationen | |
Texturfüllrate | 94.1 billion / sec vs 84 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 170 Watt vs 180 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 vs 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 vs 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3350 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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) |
|
|
||||
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 |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 270X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 | 4803 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 | 532 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 | 37.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 | 864.402 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 | 3.09 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 | 40.457 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 | 84.186 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 | 6927 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 3718 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 | 6927 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 3718 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 | 1659 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14261 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
AMD Radeon R9 270X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
Codename | Curacao | GK104 |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Startdatum | 8 October 2013 | 25 June 2013 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $199 | $249 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 440 | 576 |
Jetzt kaufen | $399 | $249.99 |
Typ | Desktop | Desktop |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 16.05 | 23.69 |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1050 MHz | 1033 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,688 gflops | 2,378 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 1280 | 1152 |
Stream Processors | 1280 | |
Texturfüllrate | 84 GTexel / s | 94.1 billion / sec |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 180 Watt | 170 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 2,800 million | 3,540 million |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 980 MHz | |
CUDA-Kerne | 1152 | |
Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 97 °C | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI... |
DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
Dual-Link-DVI-Unterstützung | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
HDCP | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 2 x 6-pin | Two 6-pin |
Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Länge | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
Minimale empfohlene Systemleistung | 500 Watt | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 179.2 GB/s | 192.2 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 6008 MHz | |
Technologien |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision Live | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Blu Ray 3D | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GPU Boost | ||
PhysX | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |