0 Comments
| Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce 320M Mac |
VS
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 1,100 MHz | vs | 450 MHz | Around 2.5x higher clock speed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Better floating-point performance | 2,944 GFLOPS | vs | 91.2 GFLOPS | More than 32.2x better floating-point performance | |||
Higher pixel rate | 36.8 GPixel/s | vs | 3.6 GPixel/s | Around 10.2x higher pixel rate | |||
Higher texture rate | 92 GTexel/s | vs | 7.2 GTexel/s | More than 12.8x higher texture rate | |||
More shading units | 1,280 | vs | 48 | 1232 more shading units | |||
More render output processors | 32 | vs | 8 | 24 more render output processors | |||
More texture mapping units | 80 | vs | 16 | 64 more texture mapping units | |||
| |||||||
Much lower TDP | 23W | vs | 180W | 7.8x lower TDP |
Features Key features of the Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce 320M Mac
pixel rate Number of pixels a graphics card can render to the screen every second
Radeon R9 270X
36.8 GPixel/s
GeForce 320M Mac
3.6 GPixel/s
texture rate Speed at which a graphics card can perform texture mapping
Radeon R9 270X
92 GTexel/s
GeForce 320M Mac
7.2 GTexel/s
floating point performance How fast the gpu can crunch numbers
Radeon R9 270X
2,944 GFLOPS
GeForce 320M Mac
91.2 GFLOPS
shading units Subcomponents of the gpu, these run in parallel to enable fast pixel shading
Radeon R9 270X
1,280
texture mapping units Built into each gpu, these resize and rotate bitmaps for texturing scenes
render output processors GPU commponents responsible for transform pixels as they flow between memory buffers
Specifications Full list of technical specs
gpu | Radeon R9 270X | vs | GeForce 320M Mac |
---|---|---|---|
GPU brand | AMD | Nvidia | |
GPU name | Curacao | MCP89 | |
Clock speed | 1,100 MHz | 450 MHz | |
Is dual GPU | No | No | |
Reference card | AMD Radeon R9 270X 1 GHz 2 GB | None | |
noise and power | |||
TDP | 180W | 23W |
raw performance | Radeon R9 270X | vs | GeForce 320M Mac |
---|---|---|---|
Shading units | 1,280 | 48 | |
Texture mapping units | 80 | 16 | |
Render output processors | 32 | 8 | |
Pixel rate | 36.8 GPixel/s | 3.6 GPixel/s | |
Texture rate | 92 GTexel/s | 7.2 GTexel/s | |
Floating-point performance | 2,944 GFLOPS | 91.2 GFLOPS |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$274 | ||
750 Ti vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
760 vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
960 vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
R9 280 vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
R9 270 vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$200 | ||
660 vs R9 270X | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
7870 vs R9 270X | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$304 | ||
1050 Ti vs 1060 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
960 vs 970 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$304 | ||
1060 vs 970 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
R9 380 vs 960 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
1050 Ti vs 970 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
R9 390 vs 970 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
970 vs R9 290X | ||