GeForce RTX 3060 vs GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 and GeForce RTX 3060, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3060 outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 441 | 84 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.24 | 70.01 |
Power efficiency | 2.92 | 18.01 |
Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
GPU code name | GK110B | GA106 |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (4 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 3060 has 5546% better value for money than GTX 780 Rev. 2.
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 | 2304 | 3584 |
Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 1320 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1777 MHz |
Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 12,000 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 170 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 199.0 |
Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 12.74 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 48 | 48 |
TMUs | 192 | 112 |
Tensor Cores | no data | 112 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
Length | 267 mm | 242 mm |
Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 12-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1875 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 360.0 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
CUDA | 3.5 | 8.6 |
DLSS | - | + |
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 | 27−30
−337%
| 118
+337%
|
1440p | 16−18
−325%
| 68
+325%
|
4K | 10−12
−370%
| 47
+370%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 24.04
−762%
| 2.79
+762%
|
1440p | 40.56
−738%
| 4.84
+738%
|
4K | 64.90
−827%
| 7.00
+827%
|
- RTX 3060 has 762% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3060 has 738% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3060 has 827% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Atomic Heart | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and RTX 3060 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3060 is 337% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3060 is 325% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3060 is 370% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 10.44 | 43.87 |
Recency | 10 September 2013 | 12 January 2021 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 170 Watt |
RTX 3060 has a 320.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 47.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3060 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 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.