AMD Radeon R7 M270 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 M270 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M 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), 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 R7 M270
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 6.6x more texture fill rate: 19.8 GTexel / s vs 3.0 billion / sec
- 8x more pipelines: 384 vs 48
- 6.6x better floating-point performance: 633.6 gflops vs 96 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 767 vs 286
- 9.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6810 vs 751
- 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1747 vs 442
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2081 vs 1570
- 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1747 vs 442
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2081 vs 1570
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 9 January 2014 vs 3 September 2010 |
Texture fill rate | 19.8 GTexel / s vs 3.0 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 384 vs 48 |
Floating-point performance | 633.6 gflops vs 96 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 767 vs 286 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6810 vs 751 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1747 vs 442 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2081 vs 1570 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1747 vs 442 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2081 vs 1570 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
- Around 38% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 725 MHz
- Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 221 vs 153
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1158 vs 527
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1158 vs 527
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 725 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 221 vs 153 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1158 vs 527 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1158 vs 527 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M270
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R7 M270 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 767 | 286 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 153 | 221 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6810 | 751 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.826 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1747 | 442 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 527 | 1158 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2081 | 1570 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1747 | 442 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 527 | 1158 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2081 | 1570 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 M270 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |
Code name | Opal | GF108 |
Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Launch date | 9 January 2014 | 3 September 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 1384 | 1388 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 633.6 gflops | 96 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 48 |
Texture fill rate | 19.8 GTexel / s | 3.0 billion / sec |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 585 million |
CUDA cores | 48 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 25.6 GB / s |
Memory type | Not Listed | (G)DDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore | ||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |