Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 270X

Reasons to consider the
Sapphire Radeon R9 270X

Report a correction
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
Front view of GeForce 320M Mac

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce 320M Mac

Report a correction
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

shading units Subcomponents of the gpu, these run in parallel to enable fast pixel shading

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


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


comments powered by Disqus