AMD Radeon R7 260X vs AMD Radeon R9 270X

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 260X and AMD Radeon R9 270X 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, 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.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 260X

• Around 57% lower typical power consumption: 115 Watt vs 180 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270X

• Around 5% higher boost clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 1000 MHz
• Around 36% higher texture fill rate: 84 GTexel / s vs 61.6 GTexel / s
• Around 43% higher pipelines: 1280 vs 896
• Around 36% better floating-point performance: 2,688 gflops vs 1,971 gflops
• Around 53% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 vs 3192
• Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 vs 523
• Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 vs 43.745
• Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 vs 804.436
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 vs 3.673
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 vs 64.088
• Around 42% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 vs 221.539
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 vs 3845
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 vs 3485
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 vs 3845
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 vs 3485
• Around 20% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 vs 1481

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 260X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3192 4869
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	523 613
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	43.745 63.87
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	804.436 1314.72
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.673 6.354
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	64.088 85.21
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	221.539 315.412
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3845 8068
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3485 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3350
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3845 8068
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3485 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3350
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	1481 1772

Compare specifications (specs)