AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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), 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 738 MHz
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 29.76 GTexel / s vs 11.81 GTexel / s
- 16x more pipelines: 512 vs 32
- 8.1x better floating-point performance: 952.3 gflops vs 117.5 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- 4.6x more memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 1008 MHz
- 7.4x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 379 vs 51
- 8.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1392 vs 166
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 1731
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 1731
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 vs 10 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 738 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 29.76 GTexel / s vs 11.81 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 512 vs 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops vs 117.5 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz vs 1008 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 379 vs 51 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1392 vs 166 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 1731 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM
- Around 30% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3689 vs 3168
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3689 vs 3168
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3689 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3689 vs 3168 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 379 | 51 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1392 | 166 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3112 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3112 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3168 | 3689 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3168 | 3689 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 1731 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 179.899 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1813.265 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.817 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.948 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 757.451 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Cape Verde | G96C |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 | 10 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 604 | 606 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 930 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops | 117.5 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 32 |
| Texture fill rate | 29.76 GTexel / s | 11.81 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 314 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 168 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | 16.13 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | 1008 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM with others
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4870
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 120 OEM
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
ATIRadeon HD 5970
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
NVIDIAGRID K120Q
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 945A
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R7 360
