GeForce GTX 770M SLI vs Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition

Radeon E8950 Radeon R9 M295X Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M390X Radeon R9 M395X Radeon R9 M395X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M485X
VS
GTX 770M GTX 770M SLI GTX 775M GTX 775M Mac Edition

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition and GeForce GTX 770M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M295X Mac Edition
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.43
+4.9%

R9 M295X Mac Edition outperforms GTX 770M SLI by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M295X Mac Edition
GTX 770M SLI GTX 770M SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking393403
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.685.85
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystno data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 November 2014 (10 years ago)30 May 2013 (11 years 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 cores20481920
Core clock speed850 MHz811 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million2x 2540 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate108.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.482 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)no data
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2x 3 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2x 192 Bit
Memory clock speed1362 MHz4000 MHz
Memory bandwidth174.3 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 outputsno data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.43 12.80
Recency 23 November 2014 30 May 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 150 Watt

R9 M295X Mac Edition has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GTX 770M SLI, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition and GeForce GTX 770M SLI.

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 Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M SLI
GeForce GTX 770M SLI
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 M295X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
R9 M295X Radeon R9 M295X
GTX 770M SLI GeForce GTX 770M SLI
vs
R9 M395 Radeon R9 M395
R9 M295X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
R9 M395X Radeon R9 M395X
Voodoo5 5000 PCI
vs
RTX 5060 Ti 5060 Ti
Arc Graphics 140V Arc Graphics 140V
vs
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Graphics 6200
Arc Graphics 130V Arc Graphics 130V
vs
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB 1050 Mobile 3 GB
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS Qualcomm X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS
vs
Qualcomm Adreno 830 830
Radeon E8950 Radeon E8950
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q 1050 Ti Max-Q
9300 GE GeForce 9300 GE
vs
ATI X1300 PRO PRO
9300 GE GeForce 9300 GE
vs
ATI X1650 PRO PRO
9300 GE GeForce 9300 GE
vs
ATI X800 GT GT
ATI X850 XT Platinum ATI X850 XT Platinum
vs
9300 SE 9300 SE
9300 GE GeForce 9300 GE
vs
ATI X800 X800

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.8 6 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate GeForce GTX 770M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition or GeForce GTX 770M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.