Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 465

Place in the ranking	555	298
Place by popularity	not in top-100	47
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.15	no data
Power efficiency	2.39	84.85
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GF100	Hawx Point
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	31 May 2010 (14 years ago)	6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	352	768
Core clock speed	607 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	26.75	129.6
Floating-point processing power	0.8554 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
Compute performance	30x	no data
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	44	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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0 x 16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	241 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1603 MHz (3206 data rate)	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	102.6 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	Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API 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	4.2	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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 465 6.87

Radeon 780M 18.31
+167%

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.

GTX 465 2650

Radeon 780M 7063
+167%

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	12−14 −200%	36 +200%
1440p	7−8 −186%	20 +186%
4K	5−6 −200%	15 +200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	23.25	no data
1440p	39.86	no data
4K	55.80	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	31 +0%	31 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +0%	24 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	54 +0%	54 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +0%	23 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	53 +0%	53 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	46 +0%	46 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 +0%	29 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	32 +0%	32 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33

+0%

30−33

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +0%	15 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

This is how GTX 465 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 200% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 186% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 200% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.87	18.31
Recency	31 May 2010	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 166.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 1233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 465 is a desktop card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.