AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM versus AMD Radeon R7 260X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM and AMD Radeon R7 260X 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 360 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 5% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 35% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 85 Watt versus 115 Watt
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 815.354 versus 804.436
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4468 versus 3845
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3667 versus 3485
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4468 versus 3845
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3667 versus 3485
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt versus 115 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 815.354 versus 804.436 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4468 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3667 versus 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4468 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3667 versus 3485 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 260X
- Environ 22% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 61.6 GTexel / s versus 50.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 17% de pipelines plus haut: 896 versus 768
- Environ 22% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,971 gflops versus 1,613 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3183 versus 3032
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 521 versus 460
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 43.745 versus 39.283
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.673 versus 3.437
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 versus 63.718
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 221.539 versus 171.258
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3340
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3340
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 61.6 GTexel / s versus 50.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,971 gflops versus 1,613 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3183 versus 3032 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 521 versus 460 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 versus 39.283 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 versus 3.437 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 versus 63.718 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 versus 171.258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3340 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 260X
| 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) |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM | AMD Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3032 | 3183 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 460 | 521 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14269 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 39.283 | 43.745 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 815.354 | 804.436 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.437 | 3.673 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 63.718 | 64.088 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 171.258 | 221.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4468 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3667 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4468 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3667 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM | AMD Radeon R7 260X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Tobago | Bonaire |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 650 | 639 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $139 | |
| Prix maintenant | $239 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.15 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,613 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 896 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 50.4 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,080 million | 2,080 million |
| Stream Processors | 896 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x 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 |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 165 mm | 170 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 104.0 GB / s | 104 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6500 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
ATIMobility Radeon X2300
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3850
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 120 OEM
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 580
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
NVIDIAT500 Mobile
