UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Radeon R9 270

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.15
+145%

R9 270 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking391619
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.11no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameCuracaoTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (10 years ago)15 August 2020 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data
Current price$229 (1.3x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores128048
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate74.00no data
Floating-point performance2,368 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R9 270 and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data+

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 data
Eyefinity1no data
HDMI+no data
DisplayPort support+no data

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune-no data
TressFX1no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore-no data
UVD+no data
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+no data
Mantle-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.

R9 270 11.15
+145%
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 4.55

Radeon R9 270 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs by 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 270 5930
+155%
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 2321

Radeon R9 270 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs by 155% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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 HD40−45
+135%
17
−135%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+118%
11
−118%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+125%
12
−125%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+118%
10−12
−118%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Hitman 3 24−27
+140%
10
−140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+141%
27
−141%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+138%
21
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+118%
10−12
−118%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Hitman 3 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+129%
24−27
−129%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+135%
17
−135%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+133%
15
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+125%
12
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+119%
16
−119%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+125%
8
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Hitman 3 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

This is how R9 270 and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:

  • R9 270 is 135% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.15 4.55
Recency 13 November 2013 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 28 Watt

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is a notebook 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
Intel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

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.


4 566 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 427 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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.