AMD Radeon R9 270X vs AMD Radeon HD 7950
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 270X and AMD Radeon HD 7950 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, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 180 Watt vs 300 Watt
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 vs 1177.395
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 vs 5.685
- Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 vs 69.23
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 vs 7988
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 vs 7988
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 31 January 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt vs 300 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 vs 63.74 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 vs 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 vs 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 vs 69.23 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 vs 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 vs 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 vs 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 vs 3699 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7950
- Around 19% higher boost clock speed: 1250 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- Around 7% higher texture fill rate: 89.6 GTexel / s vs 84 GTexel / s
- Around 40% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1280
- Around 7% better floating-point performance: 2,867 gflops vs 2,688 gflops
- Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 3 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 343.81 vs 315.412
- Around 8% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1914 vs 1772
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 89.6 GTexel / s vs 84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 vs 1280 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,867 gflops vs 2,688 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 3 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 343.81 vs 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1914 vs 1772 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7950
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 270X | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 | 63.74 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 | 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 | 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 | 69.23 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 | 343.81 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 | 1914 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 82144 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 270X | AMD Radeon HD 7950 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | Curacao | Tahiti |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 31 January 2012 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $449 |
| Place in performance rating | 440 | 503 |
| Price now | $399 | |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,688 gflops | 2,867 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1792 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 1792 |
| Texture fill rate | 84 GTexel / s | 89.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,800 million | 4,313 million |
| Compute units | 28 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 270X with others
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GTX
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro W8000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro S10000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon HD 8830M
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon R9 285
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAP106-100
