Top Nine Reasons for the KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Top 25 Reasons for the Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC

 
 
Which is better? Show result
0
0

Embed this comparison:

KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC

Top Nine Reasons for the

KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Compared to Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC

KFA2 GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
Yes
vs
No
Top 9 Reasons for KFA2 GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
54
Marginally higher effective memory clock speed
Comment
6008 MHz
vs
6000 MHz
8 MHz higher effective memory clock speed. The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other applications.

×

45
Significantly lower TDP
Comment
134 W
vs
180 W
46 W lower TDP. The thermal design power (TDP) is the maximum amount of power the cooling system needs to dissipate. A lower TDP typically means that it consumes less power.

×

43
Modestly faster memory clock speed
Comment
1502 MHz
vs
1500 MHz
2 MHz faster memory clock speed. The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

×

34
Notably lower load GPU temperature
Comment
56 °C
vs
76 °C
20 °C lower load GPU temperature. A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

×

31
A lot lower idle GPU temperature
Comment
28 °C
vs
30 °C
2 °C lower idle GPU temperature. A lower idle temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

×

30
Considerably lower load noise level
Comment
40.1 dB
vs
51.6 dB
11.50 dB lower load noise level. The level of noise when under a heavy workload.

×

30
Significantly narrower
Comment
241 mm
vs
308 mm
67 mm narrower

×

29
Shorter
Comment
111 mm
vs
120 mm
9 mm shorter

×

26
Has Double Precision Floating Point (DPFP)
Comment
Yes
vs
No
This is useful when using the GPU for general-purpose computing (GPGPU) such as scientific research, as it provides a higher degree of precision when making calculations.

×

KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is better than Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC because...

Yes
vs
No

Please choose the related object

Top 25 Reasons for the

Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC

Compared to KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

307
Substantially faster GPU clock speed
Comment
1100 MHz
vs
980 MHz
120 MHz faster GPU clock speed. The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

×

180
Significantly higher floating-point performance
Comment
2.816 TFLOPS
vs
1.505 TFLOPS
1.31 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance. Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

×

129
Newer version of DirectX
Comment
11.2
vs
11
Newer version of DirectX. DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

×

111
Significantly higher pixel rate
Comment
35.2 GPixel/s
vs
15.7 GPixel/s
19.50 GPixel/s higher pixel rate. The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

×

68
Newer version of OpenCL
Comment
1.2
vs
1.1
Newer version of OpenCL. Some applications use OpenCL to utilise the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

×

44
Appreciably more shading units
Comment
1280
vs
768
512 more shading units. Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

×

40
Clearly higher texture rate
Comment
88 GTexels/s
vs
62.7 GTexels/s
25.30 GTexels/s higher texture rate. The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

×

39
Noticeably more texture mapping units (TMUs)
Comment
80
vs
64
16 more texture mapping units (TMUs). TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

×

38
Lots more RAM memory
Comment
4.096 GB
vs
2.048 GB
2.05 GB more RAM memory

×

37
Vastly more memory bandwidth
Comment
192 GB/s
vs
144 GB/s
48 GB/s more memory bandwidth. This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

×

37
Explicitly more transistors
Comment
2800 million
vs
2540 million
260 million more transistors. A higher transistor count generally indicates a newer, more powerful processor.

×

36
Noticeably higher 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill result
Comment
75.7 GTexels/s
vs
46.1 GTexels/s
29.60 GTexels/s higher 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill result. This benchmark is designed to measure graphics performance. Source: AnandTech.

×

36
Distinctly wider memory bus width
Comment
256 bit
vs
192 bit
64 bit wider memory bus width. A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

×

34
Vastly higher 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill result
Comment
9 GPixel/s
vs
5.3 GPixel/s
3.70 GPixel/s higher 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill result. This benchmark is designed to measure graphics performance. Source: AnandTech.

×

34
Distinctly faster GPU turbo speed
Comment
1150 MHz
vs
1032 MHz
118 MHz faster GPU turbo speed. When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

×

33
Noticeably more render output units (ROPs)
Comment
32
vs
24
8 more render output units (ROPs). The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

×

32
Significantly more DisplayPort outputs
Comment
1
vs
0
1 more DisplayPort outputs. Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

×

31
Significantly more DVI outputs
Comment
2
vs
1
1 more DVI outputs. Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

×

31
Measurably higher PassMark (G3D) result
Comment
4482
vs
3514
968 higher PassMark (G3D) result. This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

×

30
Appreciably higher PassMark (DirectCompute) result
Comment
2363
vs
1621
742 higher PassMark (DirectCompute) result. This benchmark measures the general purpose computational power of a graphics card. Source: PassMark.

×

30
Significantly lower power consumption whilst under peak load
Comment
239 W
vs
261 W
22 W lower power consumption whilst under peak load

×

29
Significantly lower power consumption whilst idle
Comment
78 W
vs
107 W
29 W lower power consumption whilst idle

×

28
A little bit lower idle noise level
Comment
40 dB
vs
40.1 dB
0.10 dB lower idle noise level. The level of noise when it is not in use.

×

26
Distinctly higher Battlefield 3 (1920x1080) result
Comment
53.6 FPS
vs
36.5 FPS
17.10 FPS higher Battlefield 3 (1920x1080) result. This benchmark measures the performance of the graphics card using Battlefield 3 (1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA). Source: AnandTech.

×

25
Substantially higher Crysis: Warhead (1920x1200) result
Comment
48.4 FPS
vs
23.7 FPS
24.70 FPS higher Crysis: Warhead (1920x1200) result. This benchmark measures the performance of the graphics card using Crysis: Warhead (1920x1200 - Frost Bench - Enthusiast Quality + 4xAA). Source: AnandTech.

×

Sapphire Toxic R9 270X OC is better than KFA² GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost because...

Yes
vs
No

Please choose the related object

x
Join