Quadro FX 2800M vs Radeon R9 270

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with Quadro FX 2800M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.16
+933%

R9 270 outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 933% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4201082
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.87no data
Power efficiency5.151.00
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCuracaoG92
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (11 years ago)1 December 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores128096
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate74.0028.80
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS0.288 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8048

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 datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s64 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 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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
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. 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.

R9 270 11.16
+933%
FX 2800M 1.08

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
+933%
FX 2800M 417

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 HD300−350
+868%
31
−868%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.60no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 270 and FX 2800M compete in popular games:

  • R9 270 is 868% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 43 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.16 1.08
Recency 13 November 2013 1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 75 Watt

R9 270 has a 933.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2800M, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation one.


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.


AMD Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M

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.


3.9 598 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M 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.