AMD Radeon E9550 MXM vs AMD Radeon R9 270

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and AMD Radeon R9 270 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9550 MXM

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 37% higher boost clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 925 MHz
• 2.5x more texture fill rate: 182.3 GTexel / s vs 74 GTexel / s
• Around 80% higher pipelines: 2304 vs 1280
• 2.5x better floating-point performance: 5,834 gflops vs 2,368 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 58% lower typical power consumption: 95 Watt vs 150 Watt
• 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 vs 55.721
• Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 vs 1282.039
• Around 60% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 vs 5.927
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 vs 93.116
• Around 94% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 vs 261.843
• Around 92% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6622 vs 3448
• Around 92% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6622 vs 3448

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270

• 2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 74175 vs 36624
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3699 vs 3597
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 vs 3208
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3699 vs 3597
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 vs 3208

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270

Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	36624 74175
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	112.64 55.721
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1474.586 1282.039
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	9.473 5.927
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	96.618 93.116
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	507.291 261.843
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6622 3448
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3597 3699
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3208 3347
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6622 3448
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3597 3699
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3208 3347

Compare specifications (specs)