Radeon HD 8470D vs R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 and Radeon HD 8470D, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 295X2
2014, $1,499
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
21.08
+2269%

R9 295X2 outperforms HD 8470D by a whopping 2269% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3011187
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.22no data
Power efficiency3.251.05
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameVesuviusScrapper
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)29 July 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores2816 ×2192
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed1018 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)500 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate179.2 ×210.20
Floating-point processing power5.733 TFLOPS ×20.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs64 ×24
TMUs176 ×212
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KBno 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 supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16IGP
Length307 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×2System Shared
Memory bus width512 Bit ×2System Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s ×2no data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

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

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 295X2 21.08
+2269%
HD 8470D 0.89

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R9 295X2 8816
+2257%
Samples: 546
HD 8470D 374
Samples: 617

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 295X2 21197
+3064%
HD 8470D 670

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 HD300−350
+2208%
13
−2208%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 295X2 and HD 8470D compete in popular games:

  • R9 295X2 is 2208% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.08 0.89
Recency 29 April 2014 29 July 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 500 Watt 65 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 2269% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.

HD 8470D, on the other hand, has 669% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8470D in performance tests.

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 105 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 125 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8470D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 295X2 or Radeon HD 8470D, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.