Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 443 | 315 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.90 | 83.33 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 2700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 | 18−21
−94.4%
| 35
+94.4%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−88.9%
| 17
+88.9%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−100%
| 12
+100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 36.06 | no data |
| 1440p | 72.11 | no data |
| 4K | 108.17 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 94% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 89% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 780M is 100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.57 | 18.24 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 72.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
