AMD Radeon R9 270 versus AMD Radeon HD 7950
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270 and AMD Radeon HD 7950 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 9 mois plus tard
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 150 Watt versus 300 Watt
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1282.039 versus 1177.395
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.927 versus 5.685
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 69.23
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 versus 31 January 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt versus 300 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 versus 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 versus 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 69.23 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7950
- Environ 35% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1250 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 21% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 89.6 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s
- Environ 40% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1280
- Environ 21% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,867 gflops versus 2,368 gflops
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 3 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 82144 versus 74175
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.74 versus 55.721
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 343.81 versus 261.843
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7988 versus 3448
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7988 versus 3448
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1914 versus 1603
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1250 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 89.6 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 1280 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,867 gflops versus 2,368 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 3 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 82144 versus 74175 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.74 versus 55.721 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 343.81 versus 261.843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7988 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7988 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3347 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1914 versus 1603 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7950
| 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 7950 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 | 82144 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 | 63.74 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 | 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 | 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 | 69.23 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 | 343.81 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3448 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3448 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1603 | 1914 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD Radeon HD 7950 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Tahiti |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 | 31 January 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $449 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 501 | 503 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 925 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,368 gflops | 2,867 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1792 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 74 GTexel / s | 89.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 million | 4,313 million |
| Unités de Compute | 28 | |
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 | ||
| Nombre d’écrans Eyefinity | 6 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 210 mm | 267 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 | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
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
