Radeon 890M vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon 890M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 780 Rev. 2
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
10.66

890M outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking431253
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.27no data
Power efficiency2.95100.00
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 3.5 (2024)
GPU code nameGK110BStrix Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date10 September 2013 (11 years ago)15 July 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 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 cores23041024
Core clock speed863 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHz2900 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million34,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate173.2185.6
Floating-point processing power4.156 TFLOPS5.939 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs19264
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 amount3 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1502 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth288.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.5-

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 HD21−24
−110%
44
+110%

Cost per frame, $

1080p30.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and Radeon 890M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 890M is 110% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 23 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.66 21.70
Recency 10 September 2013 15 July 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 890M has a 103.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 890M 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 890M 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 780 Rev. 2
GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
AMD Radeon 890M
Radeon 890M

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.


4.2 13 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 110 votes

Rate Radeon 890M 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.