AMD Radeon R9 285 vs AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 285 and AMD Radeon R9 270X 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.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 285
- Videocard is newer: launch date 10 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher texture fill rate: 102.8 GTexel / s vs 84 GTexel / s
- Around 40% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1280
- Around 22% better floating-point performance: 3,290 gflops vs 2,688 gflops
- Around 37% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 vs 4869
- Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 72.799 vs 63.87
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 vs 1314.72
- Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 vs 85.21
- Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 391.399 vs 315.412
- Around 57% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2778 vs 1772
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 2 September 2014 vs 8 October 2013 |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 GTexel / s vs 84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 vs 1280 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,290 gflops vs 2,688 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 vs 4869 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 72.799 vs 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 vs 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.369 vs 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 vs 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 391.399 vs 315.412 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2778 vs 1772 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Around 6% lower typical power consumption: 180 Watt vs 190 Watt
- Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 vs 597
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 vs 6474
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 vs 3043
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 vs 2782
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 vs 6474
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 vs 3043
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 vs 2782
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt vs 190 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 vs 597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 vs 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 vs 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 vs 2782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 vs 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 vs 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 vs 2782 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 285
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270X
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 285 | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 | 4869 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 597 | 613 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 72.799 | 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 | 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.369 | 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 | 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 391.399 | 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6474 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3043 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2782 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6474 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3043 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2782 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2778 | 1772 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 285 | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | Tonga | Curacao |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Launch date | 2 September 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $199 |
| Place in performance rating | 442 | 440 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Price now | $399 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 3,290 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 1280 |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 190 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| VGA | ||
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 2 x 6-pin |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB / s | 179.2 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5500 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||

