Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000) vs GeForce GTX 275

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking718not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.37no data
Power efficiency1.13no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3+
GPU code nameGT200Bno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date15 January 2009 (15 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores240128
Core clock speed633 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nmno data
Power consumption (TDP)219 Wattno data
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate50.64no data
Floating-point processing power0.6739 TFLOPSno data
ROPs28no data
TMUs80no 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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount896 MBno data
Memory bus width448 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1134 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth127.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIno data
Multi monitor support+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_2
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.0no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000). We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop card while Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000) 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
GeForce GTX 275
AMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000)
Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000)

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.


3.7 137 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 275 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 3 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 9000) 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.