Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) vs R9 270
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270 with Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), including specs and performance data.
R9 270 outperforms R7 (Bristol Ridge) by a whopping 473% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 496 | 986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.50 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 3.12 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 1.2 (2016) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | Bristol Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 512 |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12-45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 74.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.368 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 80−85
+471%
| 14 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.24 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 1−2 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Valorant | 35−40 | 35−40 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 16 | 16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 6 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5 | 5 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Valorant | 35−40 | 35−40 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 14 | 14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Valorant | 35−40 | 35−40 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 8−9 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 6 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Valorant | 14−16 | 14−16 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 3−4 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
4K
High
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Valorant | 10−11 | 10−11 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
This is how R9 270 and R7 (Bristol Ridge) compete in popular games:
- R9 270 is 471% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.31 | 1.80 |
| Recency | 13 November 2013 | 1 June 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12 Watt |
R9 270 has a 473% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 (Bristol Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 92% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
