AMD Radeon R9 M395X versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 M395X 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 M395X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 92.54 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1280
- Environ 10% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,961 gflops versus 2,688 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5195 versus 4890
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 versus 611
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.367 versus 63.455
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 versus 315.366
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 8 October 2013 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2048 versus 1280 |
Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops versus 2,688 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 versus 4890 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 versus 611 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 versus 63.455 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 versus 315.366 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3350 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- Environ 39% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 180 Watt versus 250 Watt
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.545 versus 799.421
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.339 versus 5.718
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 71.057
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 versus 2154
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 versus 2154
Caractéristiques | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt versus 250 Watt |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.545 versus 799.421 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.339 versus 5.718 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 71.057 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 2154 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 2154 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
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) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 | 4890 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 | 611 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27697 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 | 63.455 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.421 | 1314.545 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 | 6.339 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 | 85.21 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 | 315.366 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2154 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 | 8068 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2154 | 3706 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3350 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1771 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R9 M395X | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Amethyst | Curacao |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 457 | 439 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
Prix maintenant | $399 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 723 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 1280 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s | 84 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 180 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 5,000 million | 2,800 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Stream Processors | 1280 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Eyefinity | ||
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2 x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 179.2 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
TrueAudio | ||
ZeroCore | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |