Radeon 780M vs GeForce GT 415M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 415M and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
780M outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 2358% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1169 | 313 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Power efficiency | 4.24 | 83.29 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (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 | 48 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 1−2
−3400%
| 35
+3400%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 17 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 12 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2350%
|
49
+2350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
26
+271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1450%
|
31
+1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−359%
|
130−140
+359%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1050%
|
23
+1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−257%
|
25
+257%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−980%
|
210−220
+980%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−685%
|
100−110
+685%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 29 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1050%
|
46
+1050%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−359%
|
130−140
+359%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1050%
|
23
+1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−685%
|
100−110
+685%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
29
+625%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−359%
|
130−140
+359%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−4067%
|
120−130
+4067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4025%
|
160−170
+4025%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| 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%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GT 415M and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 3400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 4067% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 36 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 18.19 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 415M has 25% lower power consumption.
Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has a 2358.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M 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.
