GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 and GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 370 outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by a small 8% 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 | 481 | 496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.85 | 1.14 |
| Power efficiency | 7.57 | 3.07 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | GK110B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (11 years ago) | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 370 has 413% better value for money than GTX 780 Rev. 2.
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 | 1024 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1536 KB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
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 | 46
+15%
| 40−45
−15%
|
| 1440p | 57
+14%
| 50−55
−14%
|
| 4K | 20
+11.1%
| 18−20
−11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24
+401%
| 16.23
−401%
|
| 1440p | 2.61
+397%
| 12.98
−397%
|
| 4K | 7.45
+384%
| 36.06
−384%
|
- R7 370 has 401% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 370 has 397% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R7 370 has 384% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+18%
|
50−55
−18%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+18%
|
50−55
−18%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+11.6%
|
95−100
−11.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+17.5%
|
40−45
−17.5%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+11.1%
|
90−95
−11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+18%
|
50−55
−18%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+13.6%
|
140−150
−13.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+8.6%
|
70−75
−8.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+17.5%
|
40−45
−17.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+11.1%
|
90−95
−11.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+8.6%
|
70−75
−8.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+17.5%
|
40−45
−17.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 20
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+15.7%
|
70−75
−15.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+13.7%
|
95−100
−13.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+12.5%
|
40−45
−12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+11.1%
|
45−50
−11.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
This is how R7 370 and GTX 780 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- R7 370 is 15% faster in 1080p
- R7 370 is 14% faster in 1440p
- R7 370 is 11% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.76 | 9.93 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 10 September 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 250 Watt |
R7 370 has a 8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 127% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 370 and GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
