AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM vs ATI Radeon HD 5970
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM and ATI Radeon HD 5970 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 - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 24% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 725 MHz
- Around 28% higher boost clock speed: 930 MHz vs 725 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4.6x lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 300 Watt
- Around 15% higher memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 4000 MHz
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3213
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3213
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 vs 18 November 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 725 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 930 MHz vs 725 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 300 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz vs 4000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3213 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3213 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 5970
- 8.7x more texture fill rate: 2x 58.0 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 29.76 GTexel / s
- 6.3x more pipelines: 2x 1600 vs 512
- 4.9x better floating-point performance: 2x 2,320.0 gflops vs 952.3 gflops
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 418 vs 388
- Around 61% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2282 vs 1420
- Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3977 vs 3112
- Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3977 vs 3112
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3454 vs 3168
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3454 vs 3168
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 2x 58.0 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 29.76 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2x 1600 vs 512 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 2,320.0 gflops vs 952.3 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 418 vs 388 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2282 vs 1420 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3977 vs 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3977 vs 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3454 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3454 vs 3168 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5970
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | ATI Radeon HD 5970 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 | 418 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1420 | 2282 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3112 | 3977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3112 | 3977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3168 | 3454 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3168 | 3454 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3213 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3213 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | ATI Radeon HD 5970 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Code name | Cape Verde | Hemlock |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 | 18 November 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 612 | 615 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 930 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops | 2x 2,320.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 2x 1600 |
| Texture fill rate | 29.76 GTexel / s | 2x 58.0 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 2,154 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 305 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | 2x 128.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM with others
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce FX 5950 Ultra
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
ATIRadeon HD 5970
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
IntelHD Graphics P4000
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
NVIDIATesla K40m
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R9 350
