AMD Radeon R7 260X versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 260X 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, 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 R7 260X
- Environ 57% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 115 Watt versus 180 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt versus 180 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3350 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Environ 5% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 36% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 84 GTexel / s versus 61.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 43% de pipelines plus haut: 1280 versus 896
- Environ 36% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,688 gflops versus 1,971 gflops
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 versus 3192
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 versus 523
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 versus 43.745
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 versus 804.436
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 versus 3.673
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 64.088
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 versus 221.539
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 3845
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 versus 3485
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 3845
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 versus 3485
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 versus 1481
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s versus 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 896 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops versus 1,971 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 versus 3192 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 versus 523 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 versus 43.745 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 versus 804.436 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 versus 3.673 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 64.088 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 versus 221.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 3485 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 versus 1481 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 260X
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 |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R7 260X | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3192 | 4869 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 | 613 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 | 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 | 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 | 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 | 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 | 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3845 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3845 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 | 1772 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 260X | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Bonaire | Curacao |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 8 October 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $139 | $199 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 614 | 440 |
| Prix maintenant | $239 | $399 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.15 | 16.05 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,971 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 1280 |
| Stream Processors | 896 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 61.6 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,080 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 170 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin | 2 x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 104 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 260X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
ATIFirePro M7740
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4270 IGP
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon R9 M270X
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon Pro 560
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon RX 550X
