AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro 455 and AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM 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: 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro 455
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.4x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 85 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3113 vs 3048
- Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 705 vs 508
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1762 vs 971
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 1980
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1762 vs 971
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 1980
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 30 October 2016 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt vs 85 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3113 vs 3048 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 705 vs 508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1762 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1762 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 1980 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
- Around 29% higher core clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 855 MHz
- Around 50% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 41.04 GTexel / s
- Around 17% higher pipelines: 896 vs 768
- Around 50% better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 1,313 gflops
- Around 28% higher memory clock speed: 6500 MHz vs 5080 MHz
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 855 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s vs 41.04 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 768 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops vs 1,313 gflops |
| Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz vs 5080 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 455
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon Pro 455 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3113 | 3048 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 705 | 508 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11003 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 33.484 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 573.646 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.854 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.793 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 148.673 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4146 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1762 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4146 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1762 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 1980 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon Pro 455 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | Baffin | Bonaire |
| Launch date | 30 October 2016 | 21 December 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 678 | 675 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 855 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,313 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 896 |
| Texture fill rate | 41.04 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 183 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB / s | 104.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 6500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon Pro 455 with others
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1000
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 210S
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K4200
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
AMDFirePro W5170M
AMDRadeon Pro 455 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M600M
