Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce GTX 780
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms GTX 780 by a whopping 239% 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 | 332 | 30 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.24 | 13.27 |
| Power efficiency | 5.94 | 19.37 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 3 (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 26 May 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7800 has 213% better value for money than GTX 780.
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 cores | 2304 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 57.7 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 128 |
| TMUs | 192 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 280 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Minimum recommended system power | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |
| 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.
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 | 54
−70%
| 180−190 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.02
+13.4%
| 13.88 |
- GTX 780 has 13% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.05 | 64.64 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 26 May 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 260 Watt |
GTX 780 has 4% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 239% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 967% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 82% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
