AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 736 MHz
- Around 78% higher pipelines: 512 vs 288
- Around 12% better floating-point performance: 952.3 gflops vs 847.9 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 3828 MHz
- Around 49% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 40722 vs 27378
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3112 vs 2879
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3112 vs 2879
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3322
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3322
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 21 December 2013 vs 14 May 2011 |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 736 MHz |
Pipelines | 512 vs 288 |
Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops vs 847.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 150 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz vs 3828 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 vs 27378 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3112 vs 2879 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3112 vs 2879 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3322 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3322 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 OEM
- Around 19% higher texture fill rate: 35.3 GTexel / s vs 29.76 GTexel / s
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 447 vs 394
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1572 vs 1457
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3372 vs 3168
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3372 vs 3168
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 35.3 GTexel / s vs 29.76 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 447 vs 394 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1572 vs 1457 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3372 vs 3168 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3372 vs 3168 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 OEM
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) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 OEM |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 394 | 447 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1457 | 1572 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 | 27378 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3112 | 2879 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3112 | 2879 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3168 | 3372 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3168 | 3372 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3322 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3322 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 OEM | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Code name | Cape Verde | GF114 |
Launch date | 21 December 2013 | 14 May 2011 |
Place in performance rating | 599 | 600 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 930 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 736 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops | 847.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 512 | 288 |
Texture fill rate | 29.76 GTexel / s | 35.3 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,500 million | 1,950 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
Length | 210 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | 91.9 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | 3828 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |