Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 465

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 465 and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 465
2010, $279
1 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
6.32

780M outperforms GTX 465 by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking637373
Place by popularitynot in top-10045
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.08no data
Power efficiency2.4683.59
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGF100Phoenix
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date31 May 2010 (16 years ago)31 January 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores352768
Core clock speed607 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2900 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.75139.2
Floating-point processing power0.8554 TFLOPS8.909 TFLOPS
Compute performance30xno data
ROPs3232
TMUs4448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache704 KB256 KB
L2 Cache512 KB2 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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1603 MHz (3206 data rate)System Shared
Memory bandwidth102.6 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMIMotherboard Dependent
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 465 6.32
Radeon 780M 16.10
+155%

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.

GTX 465 2645
Samples: 557
Radeon 780M 6736
+155%
Samples: 12596

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 HD12−1435
+192%
1440p9−10
−62.5%
24
4K5−6
−64.3%
14

Cost per frame, $

1080p23.25no data
1440p31.00no data
4K55.80no data

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 GTX 465 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 192% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 167% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 780M is 180% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.32 16.10
Recency 31 May 2010 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 155% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 90% more advanced lithography process, and 93% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 126 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2740 votes

Rate Radeon 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 465 or Radeon 780M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.