Radeon Pro W6900X vs GeForce GTX 780M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780M SLI with Radeon Pro W6900X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6900X outperforms 780M SLI by a whopping 131% 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 | 350 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.38 |
| Power efficiency | 7.02 | 10.81 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | N14E-GTX | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3072 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7080 Million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 688.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 22.02 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | no data | 1x HDMI, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 99
−55%
| 220−230 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 22.72 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 230−240
+123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 170−180
+121%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 230−240
+123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 130−140
+117%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 220−230
+124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 160−170
+129%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+117%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 170−180
+121%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 230−240
+123%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 257 | 550−600
+114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 240−250
+126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 130−140
+117%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 50−55 | 110−120
+116%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 220−230
+124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70 | 150−160
+121%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 160−170
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 110−120
+116%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+117%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 170−180
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 240−250
+126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 130−140
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 160−170
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 110−120
+116%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+117%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 220−230
+124%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 85−90
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140 | 300−310
+124%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 27−30 | 65−70
+124%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 70−75
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 55−60
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 350−400
+107%
|
| Valorant | 160−170 | 350−400
+119%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 120−130
+131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 35−40
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 90−95
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 100−105
+117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 60−65
+114%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 95−100
+126%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 30−33
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 35−40
+119%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 9−10 | 18−20
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 75−80
+127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 30−33
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 60−65
+131%
|
| Valorant | 95−100 | 210−220
+121%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 60−65
+114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 35−40
+119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 16−18
+129%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 140−150
+119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 45−50
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 70−75
+119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 40−45
+122%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 40−45
+111%
|
This is how GTX 780M SLI and Pro W6900X compete in popular games:
- Pro W6900X is 122% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.03 | 41.62 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 3 August 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 300 Watt |
GTX 780M SLI has 33% lower power consumption.
Pro W6900X, on the other hand, has a 131% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6900X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6900X 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.
