GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 285 and GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 285 outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by an impressive 61% 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 | 372 | 496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.77 | 1.14 |
| Power efficiency | 6.53 | 3.07 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | GK110B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 285 has 582% 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 | 1792 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.29 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 112 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 448 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
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 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.03 | 9.93 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 10 September 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 250 Watt |
R9 285 has a 61% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and 32% lower power consumption.
GTX 780 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 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.
