AMD Radeon R9 280 versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 280 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, 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 280
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 24% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 104.5 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s
- Environ 40% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1280
- Environ 24% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,344 gflops versus 2,688 gflops
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 3 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5563 versus 4893
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 665 versus 612
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.829 versus 63.455
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.495 versus 6.339
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 365.384 versus 315.366
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2009 versus 1771
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 4 March 2014 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 104.5 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 1280 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,344 gflops versus 2,688 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 3 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5563 versus 4893 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 665 versus 612 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 versus 63.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 versus 6.339 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 versus 315.366 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2009 versus 1771 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 933 MHz
- Environ 11% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 180 Watt versus 200 Watt
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.545 versus 1266.685
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 79.909
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 7957
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 7957
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 933 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt versus 200 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.545 versus 1266.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 79.909 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 versus 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 7957 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 versus 3337 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 280
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 280 | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5563 | 4893 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 665 | 612 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 | 63.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 | 1314.545 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 | 6.339 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 | 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 | 315.366 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7957 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7957 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2009 | 1771 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 280 | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Tahiti | Curacao |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Date de sortie | 4 March 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $279 | $199 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 423 | 441 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix maintenant | $399 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 933 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,344 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 1280 |
| Stream Processors | 1792 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 104.5 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 200 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,313 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-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 | 275 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 2 x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 240 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | |
| 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 280 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4350
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 560v
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M395 Mac Edition
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
AMDFirePro W7170M
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 570
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAP106-100
