AMD Radeon R9 270 versus AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270 and AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 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 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 150 Watt versus 225 Watt
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1282.039 versus 952.668
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.927 versus 4.68
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 64.456
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 versus 5 March 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 versus 55.446 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 versus 952.668 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 versus 4.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 64.456 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
- Environ 8% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 80 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s
- Environ 8% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,560 gflops versus 2,368 gflops
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4604 versus 4306
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 586 versus 567
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 77430 versus 74175
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 294.215 versus 261.843
- Environ 98% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6821 versus 3448
- Environ 98% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6821 versus 3448
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1651 versus 1603
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 80 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,560 gflops versus 2,368 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4604 versus 4306 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 586 versus 567 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 77430 versus 74175 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 294.215 versus 261.843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6821 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6821 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3347 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1651 versus 1603 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 | 4604 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 | 586 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 | 77430 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 | 55.446 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 | 952.668 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 | 4.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 | 64.456 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 | 294.215 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3448 | 6821 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3448 | 6821 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1603 | 1651 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Pitcairn |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 | 5 March 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $349 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 501 | 463 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 925 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,368 gflops | 2,560 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1280 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 1024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 74 GTexel / s | 80 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 210 mm | 241 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 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 | 1200 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 V7350
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9300 SE
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7950
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
AMDFirePro W7000
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGRID M60-1Q
