NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs AMD Radeon R9 270X
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK und AMD Radeon R9 270X 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, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 4 Monat(e) später
- 2.5x mehr Texturfüllrate: 213 billion / sec vs 84 GTexel / s
- 2.3x mehr Leitungssysteme: 2880 vs 1280
- 2.1x bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 5,645 gflops vs 2,688 gflops
- 3x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 6 GB vs 2 GB
- Etwa 84% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8972 vs 4870
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 72.677 vs 63.87
- Etwa 26% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.988 vs 6.354
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8721 vs 8068
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8721 vs 8068
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3095 vs 1772
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 18 February 2014 vs 8 October 2013 |
Texturfüllrate | 213 billion / sec vs 84 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 2880 vs 1280 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 5,645 gflops vs 2,688 gflops |
Maximale Speichergröße | 6 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8972 vs 4870 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 72.677 vs 63.87 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.988 vs 6.354 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8721 vs 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8721 vs 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 3350 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3095 vs 1772 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Etwa 7% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1050 MHz vs 980 MHz
- Etwa 39% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 180 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 vs 592
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 vs 1293.474
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 vs 22.384
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 vs 290.861
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 vs 3679
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 vs 3679
Spezifikationen | |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1050 MHz vs 980 MHz |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 180 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 vs 592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 vs 1293.474 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 vs 22.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 vs 290.861 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 vs 3679 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 vs 3679 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270X
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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8972 | 4870 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 592 | 613 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27012 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 72.677 | 63.87 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1293.474 | 1314.72 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.988 | 6.354 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 22.384 | 85.21 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 290.861 | 315.412 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8721 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3679 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8721 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3679 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3350 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3095 | 1772 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
Codename | GK110B | Curacao |
Startdatum | 18 February 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $999 | $199 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 452 | 453 |
Jetzt kaufen | $999.99 | $399 |
Typ | Desktop | Desktop |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 10.82 | 16.05 |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 980 MHz | 1050 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 889 MHz | |
CUDA-Kerne | 2880 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 5,645 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 2880 | 1280 |
Texturfüllrate | 213 billion / sec | 84 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 250 Watt | 180 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 7,080 million | 2,800 million |
Stream Processors | 1280 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
Display-Anschlüsse | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI... | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
Dual-Link-DVI-Unterstützung | ||
Eyefinity | ||
VGA | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | One 8-pin and one 6-pin | 2 x 6-pin |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 6 GB | 2 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 336 GB / s | 179.2 GB/s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 7.0 GB/s | |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision Live | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Blu Ray 3D | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
TXAA | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |