AMD Radeon R9 M270X vs AMD Radeon HD 7970M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M270X and AMD Radeon HD 7970M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M270X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3717 vs 3692
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3717 vs 3692
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3361 vs 3339
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3361 vs 3339
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 21 March 2014 vs 24 April 2012 |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 3692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 3692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 vs 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 vs 3339 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7970M
- Around 17% higher core clock speed: 850 MHz vs 725 MHz
- Around 42% higher texture fill rate: 68 GTexel / s vs 48 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 1280 vs 768
- Around 42% better floating-point performance: 2,176 gflops vs 1,536 gflops
- 4.3x more memory clock speed: 4800 MHz vs 1125 MHz
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3559 vs 1204
- Around 61% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 492 vs 306
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 850 MHz vs 725 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 68 GTexel / s vs 48 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1280 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 2,176 gflops vs 1,536 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz vs 1125 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3559 vs 1204 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 492 vs 306 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M270X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7970M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D 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 M270X | AMD Radeon HD 7970M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1204 | 3559 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 306 | 492 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 | 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 | 3339 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 17210 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 51.181 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1121.002 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.355 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.527 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 256.99 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5094 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5094 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 M270X | AMD Radeon HD 7970M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Code name | Venus | Wimbledon |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch date | 21 March 2014 | 24 April 2012 |
Place in performance rating | 621 | 623 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 775 MHz | |
Compute units | 10 | |
Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 850 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | 2,176 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 1280 |
Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s | 68 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 1,500 million | 2,800 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_1) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 153.6 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 4800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |