Radeon R7 250E vs R9 270

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 and Radeon R7 250E, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.16
+155%

R9 270 outperforms R7 250E by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking420670
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.041.27
Power efficiency5.195.54
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameCuracaoCape Verde
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (11 years ago)20 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 $109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 270 has 297% better value for money than R7 250E.

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 cores1280512
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate74.0025.60
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8032

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s72 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131

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
+155%
R7 250E 4.37

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.

R9 270 5930
+201%
R7 250E 1970

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 11.16 4.37
Recency 13 November 2013 20 December 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 55 Watt

R9 270 has a 155.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R7 250E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, and 172.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E 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.


AMD Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
AMD Radeon R7 250E
Radeon R7 250E

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
4 23 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250E 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.