Radeon HD 6670 vs GeForce GTX 275

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 6670, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 275
2009
896 MB GDDR3, 219 Watt
3.67
+94.2%

GTX 275 outperforms HD 6670 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking677871
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.350.08
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGT200BTurks
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 January 2009 (15 years ago)19 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 $99
Current price$82 (0.3x MSRP)$134 (1.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 275 has 338% better value for money than HD 6670.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores240480
CUDA cores240no data
Core clock speed633 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)219 Watt66 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate50.6 billion/sec19.20
Floating-point performance673.9 gflops768.0 gflops

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0PCIe 2.0 x16
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm)168 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount896 MB1 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1134 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth127.0 GB/s64 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Multi monitor support+no data
Eyefinityno data1
HDMIno data+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
DisplayPort supportno data-
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAccelerationno data-
CrossFireno data1
Endurono data-
HD3Dno data-
PowerTuneno data-
TrueAudiono data-
ZeroCoreno data-

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)DirectX® 11
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.04.4
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/Ano data
Mantleno data-
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 275 3.67
+94.2%
HD 6670 1.89

GeForce GTX 275 outperforms Radeon HD 6670 by 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 275 1416
+94%
HD 6670 730

GeForce GTX 275 outperforms Radeon HD 6670 by 94% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.67 1.89
Recency 15 January 2009 19 April 2011
Cost $249 $99
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 219 Watt 66 Watt

The GeForce GTX 275 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6670 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
GeForce GTX 275
AMD Radeon HD 6670
Radeon HD 6670

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 132 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 275 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 822 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.