by Rob Williams on October 15, 2013 in Graphics & Displays
We took AMD’s $300 Radeon R9 280X for a spin last week and were left quite impressed overall with the results, versus the GTX 760. Will we get the same sort of reaction with the company’s Radeon R9 270X? With the help of NVIDIA’s ~$175 GeForce GTX 660, we’re going to find that out.
We don’t make it a point to seek out automated gaming benchmarks, but we do like to get a couple in that anyone reading this can run themselves. Of these, Futuremark’s name leads the pack, as its benchmarks have become synonymous with the activity. Plus, it does help that the company’s benchmarks stress PCs to their limit – and beyond.
While Futuremark’s latest GPU test suite is 3DMark, I’m also including results from 3DMark 11 as it’s still a common choice among benchmarkers.
We didn’t quite see this domination through all of our real-world results, but according to Futuremark, AMD’s 270X is much faster than the GTX 660 – and as fast as the GTX 760 in the latest 3DMark.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
Unigine might not have as established a name as Futuremark, but its products are nothing short of “awesome”. The company’s main focus is its game engine, but a by-product of that is its benchmarks, which are used to both give benchmarkers another great tool to take advantage of, and also to show-off what its engine is capable of. It’s a win-win all-around.
The biggest reason that the company’s “Heaven” benchmark is so relied-upon by benchmarkers is that both AMD and NVIDIA promote it for its heavy use of tessellation. Like 3DMark, the benchmark here is overkill by design, so results are not going to directly correlate with real gameplay. Rather, they showcase which card models can better handle both DX11 and its GPU-bogging features.
Wrapping things up, we see the 270X yet again skipping over the GTX 660; fortunately for NVIDIA though, it has the best value proposition here based on these results.