GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs 470
Aggregated performance score
470 outperforms 780M Mac Edition by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 480 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.13 | 1.10 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 8 November 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
| Current price | $9.98 (0x MSRP) | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 470 has 639% better value for money than GTX 780M Mac Edition.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 448 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | 448 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.0 billion/sec | 102.0 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,088.6 gflops | 2,448 gflops |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 9.5" (241 mm) (24.1 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pins | no data |
| SLI options | + | no data |
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 | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 133.9 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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:
| 900p | 52
+30%
| 40−45
−30%
|
| Full HD | 64
+28%
| 50−55
−28%
|
| 1200p | 53
+32.5%
| 40−45
−32.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GTX 470 and GTX 780M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 470 is 30% faster than GTX 780M Mac Edition in 900p
- GTX 470 is 28% faster than GTX 780M Mac Edition in 1080p
- GTX 470 is 32.5% faster than GTX 780M Mac Edition in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.02 | 6.67 |
| Recency | 12 April 2010 | 8 November 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 122 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 470 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
