AMD Radeon R9 280 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD Radeon R9 280 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN 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 280
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 0 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 7% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 933 MHz vs 876 MHz
- Etwa 25% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 200 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 208.3x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 1250 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 667 vs 649
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.829 vs 62.027
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1266.685 vs 1218.137
- Etwa 11% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.495 vs 5.835
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 79.909 vs 36.842
- Etwa 70% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 365.384 vs 215.546
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 4 March 2014 vs 19 February 2013 |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 933 MHz vs 876 MHz |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 200 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 1250 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 667 vs 649 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 vs 62.027 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 vs 1218.137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 vs 5.835 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 vs 36.842 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 vs 215.546 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
- Etwa 79% höhere Texturfüllrate: 187.5 billion / sec vs 104.5 GTexel / s
- Etwa 50% höhere Leitungssysteme: 2688 vs 1792
- Etwa 41% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 4,709 gflops vs 3,344 gflops
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 6 GB vs 3 GB
- Etwa 48% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8194 vs 5543
- Etwa 28% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10176 vs 7957
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3337
- Etwa 28% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10176 vs 7957
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3337
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2901 vs 2009
| Spezifikationen | |
| Texturfüllrate | 187.5 billion / sec vs 104.5 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 2688 vs 1792 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 4,709 gflops vs 3,344 gflops |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 6 GB vs 3 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8194 vs 5543 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10176 vs 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10176 vs 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3337 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2901 vs 2009 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 280
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
| 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 280 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5543 | 8194 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 667 | 649 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 | 62.027 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 | 1218.137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 | 5.835 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 | 36.842 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 | 215.546 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7957 | 10176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7957 | 10176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2009 | 2901 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 24530 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| AMD Radeon R9 280 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Codename | Tahiti | GK110 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Startdatum | 4 March 2014 | 19 February 2013 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $279 | $999 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 427 | 422 |
| Typ | Desktop | Desktop |
| Jetzt kaufen | $2,054.59 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 5.09 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 933 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 3,344 gflops | 4,709 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 1792 | 2688 |
| Stream Processors | 1792 | |
| Texturfüllrate | 104.5 GTexel / s | 187.5 billion / sec |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 200 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 4,313 million | 7,080 million |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 837 MHz | |
| CUDA-Kerne | 2688 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-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 |
| Länge | 275 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | One 8-pin and one 6-pin |
| Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 3 GB | 6 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 240 GB/s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 384 Bit | 384-bit GDDR5 |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 1250 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologien |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| 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 | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| TXAA | ||
