NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 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, 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 - 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 39% higher core clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1296 MHz
- Around 11% better floating-point performance: 691.2 gflops vs 622.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 116 Watt vs 236 Watt
- Around 20% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1553 vs 1299
- 6.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 376 vs 62
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3351 vs 2697
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3351 vs 2697
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 15 March 2011 vs 16 June 2008 |
Core clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1296 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops vs 622.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 116 Watt vs 236 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1553 vs 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 376 vs 62 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3351 vs 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3351 vs 2697 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
- Around 67% higher texture fill rate: 48.2 billion / sec vs 28.8 billion / sec
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 240 vs 192
- Around 8% higher memory clock speed: 1107 MHz vs 1026 MHz
- 3.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 21396 vs 5767
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 48.2 billion / sec vs 28.8 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 240 vs 192 |
Memory clock speed | 1107 MHz vs 1026 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 21396 vs 5767 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 vs 3322 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 vs 3322 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1553 | 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 376 | 62 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5767 | 21396 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.461 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.392 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.125 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.511 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 41.941 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2488 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3351 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3322 | 3325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2488 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3351 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3322 | 3325 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 322 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GF116 | GT200 |
Launch date | 15 March 2011 | 16 June 2008 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $649 |
Place in performance rating | 1061 | 1062 |
Price now | $287.59 | $522.78 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 7.49 | 2.98 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1296 MHz |
CUDA cores | 192 | 240 |
Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 622.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
Pipelines | 192 | 240 |
Texture fill rate | 28.8 billion / sec | 48.2 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 116 Watt | 236 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,170 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S / PDIF |
Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI, 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 8.25" (21 cm) | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) |
SLI options | 2-way | 2-way3-way |
Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | 6-pin & 8-pin |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB / s | 141.7 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 512 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1026 MHz | 1107 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
SLI |