Radeon 780M vs FirePro S9050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro S9050 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms S9050 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 463 | 373 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 45 |
| Power efficiency | 4.05 | 83.58 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 August 2014 (12 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (2 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 2 MB |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 254 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 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 | 12 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 264 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 1x DisplayPort | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
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 | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 24−27 | 35
+45.8%
|
| 1440p | 16−18 | 24
+50%
|
| 4K | 10−12 | 14
+40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 49 | 49 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119 | 119 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39 | 39 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 25 | 25 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 39 | 39 |
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82 | 82 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31 | 31 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 | 45 |
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Valorant | 116 | 116 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 23 | 23 |
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39 | 39 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 | 24 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Far Cry 5 | 41 | 41 |
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44 | 44 |
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 29 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47 | 47 |
| Valorant | 103 | 103 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23 | 23 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Far Cry 5 | 39 | 39 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 29 |
| Valorant | 120−130 | 120−130 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 90−95 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27 | 27 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18 | 18 |
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Valorant | 79 | 79 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 | 16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 | 20 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21 | 21 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 | 15 |
| Valorant | 43 | 43 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 6 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 16−18 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 16−18 |
This is how FirePro S9050 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 46% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 50% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 780M is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.71 | 16.10 |
| Recency | 7 August 2014 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 37% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 86% more advanced lithography process, and 93% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S9050 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro S9050 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 780M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
