GeForce 305M vs Radeon R9 270

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with GeForce 305M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.94
+2779%

R9 270 outperforms 305M by a whopping 2779% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4301272
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.97no data
Power efficiency5.121.91
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameCuracaoGT218
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (11 years ago)10 January 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128016
Core clock speedno data525 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate74.004.200
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS0.0368 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data55
ROPs324
TMUs808

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GBUp to 512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s11.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
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
Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

R9 270 10.94
+2779%
GeForce 305M 0.38

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.

R9 270 4306
+2771%
GeForce 305M 150

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.94 0.38
Recency 13 November 2013 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 14 Watt

R9 270 has a 2778.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 305M, on the other hand, has 971.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 305M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop card while GeForce 305M is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
NVIDIA GeForce 305M
GeForce 305M

Other comparisons

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.


3.9 624 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 4 votes

Rate GeForce 305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 270 or GeForce 305M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.