UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Radeon R9 270

Place in the ranking	416	649
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.87	no data
Power efficiency	5.15	11.25
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Curacao	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 November 2013 (10 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$179	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 cores	1280	48
Core clock speed	no data	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	1450 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	74.00	no data
Floating-point processing power	2.368 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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 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	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
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.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12_1
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. 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 11.16
+145%

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 4.55

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.

R9 270 5930
+155%

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 2321

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 HD

40−45
+135%

−135%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.48

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 +0%	12 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10 +0%	10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	36 +0%	36 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +0%	17 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12 +0%	12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 +0%	8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

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

R9 270 is 135% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.16	4.55
Recency	13 November 2013	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	28 Watt

R9 270 has a 145.3% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 435.7% lower power consumption.

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.