AMD Radeon R9 270 versus AMD Radeon Sky 500
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270 and AMD Radeon Sky 500 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 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.721 versus 54.669
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1282.039 versus 1096.68
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.927 versus 5.352
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 89.633
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 261.843 versus 247.642
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3699 versus 2116
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3699 versus 2116
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2013 versus 27 March 2013 |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 versus 54.669 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 versus 1096.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 versus 5.352 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 89.633 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 versus 247.642 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 versus 2116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 versus 2116 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Sky 500
- 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 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4709 versus 4306
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 572 versus 567
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 74902 versus 74175
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3585 versus 3448
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 5116 versus 3347
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3585 versus 3448
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 5116 versus 3347
| 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 | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4709 versus 4306 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 572 versus 567 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74902 versus 74175 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3585 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 5116 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3585 versus 3448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 5116 versus 3347 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Sky 500
| 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 Radeon Sky 500 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4306 | 4709 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 | 572 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 | 74902 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 | 54.669 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 | 1096.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 | 5.352 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 | 89.633 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 261.843 | 247.642 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3448 | 3585 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 | 2116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 5116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3448 | 3585 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 | 2116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 5116 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1603 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270 | AMD Radeon Sky 500 | |
|---|---|---|
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 | 27 March 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 520 | 517 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
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 | 150 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 | 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Compte DisplayPort | 1 | |
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 | 154 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
ATIRadeon X1300 PRO
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 205 OEM
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
AMDRadeon Sky 500
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 730A
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M4000
AMDRadeon R9 270 vs
NVIDIARTX A500 Mobile
