GeForce GTX 780M vs 775M
Aggregated performance score
780M outperforms 775M by 6% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 438 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.64 | 1.32 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX-A2 | N14E-GTX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 September 2013 (10 years old) | 30 May 2013 (10 years old) |
| Current price | $780 | $1093 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 775M has 24% better value for money than GTX 780M.
Technical specs
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 | 1344 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 823 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 102.0 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 2,448 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 775M and GeForce GTX 780M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | + |
Memory
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 | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
780M outperforms 775M by 6% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
780M outperforms 775M by 6% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
780M outperforms 775M by 28% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
780M outperforms 775M by 4% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
780M outperforms 775M by 3% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 60−65
−10%
| 66
+10%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35
+84.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+11.8%
|
17
−11.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 775M and GTX 780M compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 780M is 10% faster than GTX 775M
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 775M is 11.8% faster than the GTX 780M.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 780M is 84.2% faster than the GTX 775M.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 775M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- GTX 780M is ahead in 53 tests (78%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (21%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 9.28 | 9.84 |
| Recency | 24 September 2013 | 30 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 775M and GeForce GTX 780M.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
