AMD Radeon R9 270 versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270 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 R9 270
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 20% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 150 Watt versus 180 Watt
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 85.21
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt versus 180 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 85.21 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Environ 14% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 14% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 84 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s
- Environ 14% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,688 gflops versus 2,368 gflops
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 versus 4306
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 versus 567
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 versus 55.721
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 versus 1282.039
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 versus 5.927
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 versus 261.843
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 3448
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 3448
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 versus 1603
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s versus 74 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops versus 2,368 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 versus 4306 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 versus 567 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 versus 55.721 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 versus 1282.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 versus 5.927 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 versus 261.843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 versus 3347 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 versus 1603 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270
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 R9 270 | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 | 4869 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 | 613 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 | 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 | 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 | 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 | 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 | 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3448 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3448 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1603 | 1772 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Curacao |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 | 8 October 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $199 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 501 | 440 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix maintenant | $399 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 925 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,368 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1280 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 74 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 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 | 210 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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
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
