AMD Radeon R9 270 versus AMD FirePro W7000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270 and AMD FirePro W7000 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 R9 270
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 5 mois plus tard
- 2.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 150 Watt versus 350 Watt
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4306 versus 4253
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 567 versus 541
- 4.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 74175 versus 17788
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.721 versus 52.467
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1282.039 versus 1148.367
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.927 versus 4.886
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 85.472
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 versus 13 June 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt versus 350 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 versus 4253 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 versus 541 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 versus 17788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 versus 52.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 versus 1148.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 versus 4.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 85.472 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W7000
- Environ 3% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 76 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s
- Environ 3% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,432 gflops versus 2,368 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 268.49 versus 261.843
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6475 versus 3448
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6475 versus 3448
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 76 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,432 gflops versus 2,368 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 268.49 versus 261.843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6475 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6475 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3347 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W7000
| 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) |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 | 4253 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 | 541 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 | 17788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 | 52.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 | 1148.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 | 4.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 | 85.472 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 | 268.49 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3448 | 6475 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3448 | 6475 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1603 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD FirePro W7000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Pitcairn |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 | 13 June 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $899 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 510 | 512 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 925 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,368 gflops | 2,432 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1280 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 74 GTexel / s | 76 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 million | 2,800 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 950 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Compte DisplayPort | 4 | |
| StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 210 mm | 242 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| Facteur de forme | Full Height / Full Length | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 270 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
ATIFireGL V7300
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9500M GE
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
AMDFirePro W7000
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 740A
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 720A
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
AMDRadeon R7 340 OEM
