AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM and AMD Radeon R9 270X pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: 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.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
- 3.6x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 180 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 180 Watt |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Environ 35% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 84 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- 4x plus de pipelines: 1280 versus 320
- 5.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,688 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- 8.9x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 versus 548
- 3.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 versus 194
- 4.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 versus 13.569
- 8.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 versus 162.886
- 6.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 versus 1.009
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 19.668
- 4.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 versus 77.819
- 7.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 1119
- 2.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 versus 1284
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 versus 2264
- 7.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 1119
- 2.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 versus 1284
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 versus 2264
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1280 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 versus 548 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 versus 194 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 versus 13.569 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 versus 162.886 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 versus 1.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 19.668 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 versus 77.819 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 1119 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 versus 2264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 1119 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 versus 2264 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
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) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 548 | 4869 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 613 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4936 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.569 | 63.87 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.886 | 1314.72 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.009 | 6.354 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.668 | 85.21 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 | 315.412 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1119 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1284 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 | 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1284 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 | 3350 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Oland | Curacao |
Date de sortie | 1 November 2013 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1406 | 440 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
Prix maintenant | $399 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1050 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 1280 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 180 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 2,800 million |
Stream Processors | 1280 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2 x 6-pin |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 179.2 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |