RTX 5000 Ada Generation vs Radeon 780M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 780M with RTX 5000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Ada Generation outperforms 780M by a whopping 359% 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 | 373 | 16 |
| Place by popularity | 45 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 83.57 | 23.02 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Phoenix | AD102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 31 January 2024 (2 years ago) | 9 August 2023 (3 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 | 768 | 12800 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 1155 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 25,390 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 139.2 | 1,020 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.909 TFLOPS | 65.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 176 |
| TMUs | 48 | 400 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 400 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 100 |
| L0 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 12.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 72 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 576.0 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 | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 35
−78.1%
| 160−170 |
| 1440p | 24
−78.2%
| 110−120 |
| 4K | 14 | 60−65
+329%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 49 | 220−230
+349%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119 | 500−550
+320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39 | 170−180
+336%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 25 | 110−120
+340%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 39 | 170−180
+336%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 300−310
+329%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82 | 350−400
+327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31 | 140−150
+352%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45 | 200−210
+344%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 400−450
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 300−310
+341%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 280−290
+359%
|
| Valorant | 116 | 500−550
+331%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 23 | 100−105
+335%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 300−310
+329%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39 | 170−180
+336%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220 | 950−1000
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 | 110−120
+358%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−105 | 450−500
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41 | 180−190
+339%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 400−450
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 300−310
+341%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44 | 200−210
+355%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 130−140
+348%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 280−290
+359%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47 | 210−220
+347%
|
| Valorant | 103 | 450−500
+337%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75 | 300−310
+329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23 | 100−105
+335%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−105 | 450−500
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39 | 170−180
+336%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 300−310
+341%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 280−290
+359%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 130−140
+348%
|
| Valorant | 120−130 | 550−600
+330%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 400−450
+344%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27 | 120−130
+344%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130 | 550−600
+358%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18 | 80−85
+344%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 95−100
+352%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 650−700
+333%
|
| Valorant | 79 | 350−400
+343%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 210−220
+347%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 | 70−75
+338%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 120−130
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 180−190
+339%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 | 90−95
+350%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 160−170
+332%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14 | 55−60
+323%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6 | 27−30
+350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21 | 95−100
+352%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 55−60
+323%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 | 65−70
+333%
|
| Valorant | 43 | 190−200
+342%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 110−120
+358%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 55−60
+323%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 27−30
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60 | 260−270
+348%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 55−60
+358%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 130−140
+348%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 70−75
+338%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 70−75
+338%
|
This is how Radeon 780M and RTX 5000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 357% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 358% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 329% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.18 | 74.29 |
| Recency | 31 January 2024 | 9 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
Radeon 780M has an age advantage of 5 months, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 94% lower power consumption.
RTX 5000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 359% higher aggregate performance score.
The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 780M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 780M is a desktop graphics card while RTX 5000 Ada Generation 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.
