Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Radeon R5 (Carrizo), including specs and performance data.
R9 270X outperforms R5 (Carrizo) by a whopping 591% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 404 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.84 | 3.60 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 1280 | 256 |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+467%
|
9−10
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+184%
|
35−40
−184%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+372%
|
35−40
−372%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+300%
|
20−22
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+467%
|
9−10
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+184%
|
35−40
−184%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+300%
|
20−22
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+467%
|
9−10
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+184%
|
35−40
−184%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+718%
|
10−12
−718%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+583%
|
12−14
−583%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+967%
|
12−14
−967%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+611%
|
9−10
−611%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 270X is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 270X surpassed R5 (Carrizo) in all 56 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.51 | 1.81 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 4 June 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 12 Watt |
R9 270X has a 591.2% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 (Carrizo), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 1400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Carrizo) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Radeon R5 (Carrizo) 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.
