AMD Radeon R9 270X versus AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270X and AMD Radeon R9 280X 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, 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 270X
- Environ 5% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 39% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 180 Watt versus 250 Watt
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 3700 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 280X
- Environ 52% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 128.0 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1280
- Environ 52% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,096 gflops versus 2,688 gflops
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 3 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6138 versus 4869
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 675 versus 613
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 89.187 versus 63.87
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1434.496 versus 1314.72
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.656 versus 6.354
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 87.459 versus 85.21
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 493.57 versus 315.412
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9603 versus 8068
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9603 versus 8068
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2351 versus 1772
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 128.0 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1280 |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,096 gflops versus 2,688 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 3 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6138 versus 4869 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 675 versus 613 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 versus 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 versus 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 versus 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 versus 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 versus 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 versus 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 versus 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2351 versus 1772 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
| 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 270X | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 | 6138 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 | 675 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 | 89.187 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 | 1434.496 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 | 7.656 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 | 87.459 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 | 493.57 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 | 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 | 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 | 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 | 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 | 2351 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270X | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Tahiti |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 8 October 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | $299 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 440 | 372 |
| Prix maintenant | $399 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops | 4,096 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2048 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 2048 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s | 128.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 million | 4,313 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 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2 x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
| Longeur | 275 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | 288 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 270X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GTX
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro W8000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro S10000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon HD 8830M
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon R9 285
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAP106-100
