Radeon 780M vs GeForce 7150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7150M with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms 7150M by a whopping 41600% 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 | 1527 | 345 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 65 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 83.38 |
| Architecture | no data | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | C67 | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2006 (19 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 425 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 8.909 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | shared Memory | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | shared Memory | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | -0−1 | 35 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 22 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 13 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−950%
|
60−65
+950%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−2300%
|
210−220
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1163%
|
100−110
+1163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−950%
|
60−65
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1050%
|
46
+1050%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1163%
|
100−110
+1163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−950%
|
60−65
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
29
+625%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−478%
|
130−140
+478%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 160−170 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
4K
High Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21
+31.3%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−9400%
|
95−100
+9400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 9400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 21 tests (33%)
- there's a draw in 43 tests (67%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.04 | 16.68 |
| Recency | 1 February 2006 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 4 nm |
Radeon 780M has a 41600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, and a 2150% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7150M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 7150M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 780M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
