Radeon 780M vs FirePro M5950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M5950 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro M5950
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
3.40

780M outperforms M5950 by a whopping 438% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking724297
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Power efficiency6.9286.80
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameWhistlerPhoenix
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date4 January 2011 (13 years ago)6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)

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 cores480768
Core clock speed725 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2700 MHz
Number of transistors716 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate17.40129.6
Floating-point processing power0.696 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Widthno dataIGP
Form factorMXM-Ano data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth57 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.7
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.1
VulkanN/A1.3

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.

FirePro M5950 3.40
Radeon 780M 18.28
+438%

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.

FirePro M5950 1314
Radeon 780M 7054
+437%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FirePro M5950 6257
Radeon 780M 41622
+565%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

FirePro M5950 1350
Radeon 780M 12785
+847%

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:

900p24
−400%
120−130
+400%
Full HD24
−54.2%
37
+54.2%
1440p4−5
−450%
22
+450%
4K2−3
−600%
14
+600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−550%
39
+550%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−310%
40−45
+310%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−363%
35−40
+363%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−417%
31
+417%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−444%
45−50
+444%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−505%
110−120
+505%
Hitman 3 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−275%
90−95
+275%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−1160%
60−65
+1160%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−513%
45−50
+513%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−329%
60−65
+329%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−112%
85−90
+112%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−310%
40−45
+310%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−363%
35−40
+363%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−300%
24
+300%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−444%
45−50
+444%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−505%
110−120
+505%
Hitman 3 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−275%
90−95
+275%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−1160%
60−65
+1160%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−513%
45−50
+513%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−286%
54
+286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−180%
40−45
+180%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−112%
85−90
+112%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−310%
40−45
+310%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−363%
35−40
+363%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−283%
23
+283%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−505%
110−120
+505%
Hitman 3 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−121%
53
+121%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−229%
46
+229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−93.3%
29
+93.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+128%
18
−128%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−513%
45−50
+513%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−460%
27−30
+460%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−9900%
100−105
+9900%
Hitman 3 8−9
−175%
21−24
+175%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−363%
35−40
+363%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−900%
20
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−424%
110−120
+424%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2400%
24−27
+2400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 32
+0%
32
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+0%
17
+0%

This is how FirePro M5950 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 400% faster in 900p
  • Radeon 780M is 54% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 450% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 780M is 600% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M5950 is 128% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 780M is 9900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FirePro M5950 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Radeon 780M is ahead in 62 tests (87%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.40 18.28
Recency 4 January 2011 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 437.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro M5950 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 780M is a desktop 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.


AMD FirePro M5950
FirePro M5950
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

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.


3.8 52 votes

Rate FirePro M5950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1413 votes

Rate Radeon 780M 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.