GeForce GT 420M vs Radeon R9 270

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
255 OEM 260 OEM 270 270 1024SP 270X 280 280X 280X2 285 290 290X 290X2 295X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
615 GT 415M GT 420M GT 425M GT 435M GT 520M GT 525M GT 540M GT 550M GT 620M GT 630M GT 640M LE

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with GeForce GT 420M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013, $179
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.30
+1008%

R9 270 outperforms 420M by a whopping 1008% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 270 R9 270
GT 420M GT 420M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4831176
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.44no data
Power efficiency5.293.11
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCuracaoGF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (12 years ago)3 September 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores128096
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate74.008.000
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS0.192 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs8016
L1 Cache320 KB128 KB
L2 Cache512 KB256 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s25.6 GB/s
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

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.

R9 270 10.30
+1008%
GT 420M 0.93

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
+1001%
Samples: 11
GT 420M 391
Samples: 360

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:

900p130−140
+983%
12
−983%
Full HD190−200
+956%
18
−956%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra

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

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 270 and GT 420M compete in popular games:

  • R9 270 is 983% faster in 900p
  • R9 270 is 956% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 10.30 0.93
Recency 13 November 2013 3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 23 Watt

R9 270 has a 1008% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

GT 420M, on the other hand, has 552% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 420M 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.

R9 270 Radeon R9 270
vs
GTX 660 Ti GeForce GTX 660 Ti
GT 420M GeForce GT 420M
vs
HD 8610G Radeon HD 8610G
R9 270 Radeon R9 270
vs
HD 7870 XT Radeon HD 7870 XT
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
R9 M290X M290X
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
HD Graphics 620 620
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
HD 8750M 8750M
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
ATI HD 5770 5770
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
ATI Mobility HD 4650 4650
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
Radeon 520 520
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
R7 250E 250E
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
R5 240 OEM 240 OEM
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
GT 720 720
R9 270 AMD R9 270
vs
GT 630 Rev. 2 PCIe x8 630 Rev. 2 PCIe x8

Community ratings

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

3.9 680 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 137 votes

Rate GeForce GT 420M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 270 or GeForce GT 420M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.