GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 and GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 632% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 435 | 11 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.26 | 67.35 |
| Power efficiency | 2.94 | 24.45 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | AD104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4070 SUPER has 5245% 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 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 80 |
| TMUs | 192 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 504.2 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 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 | 8.9 |
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
−707%
| 218
+707%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−706%
| 145
+706%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−750%
| 85
+750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 24.04
−775%
| 2.75
+775%
|
| 1440p | 36.06
−773%
| 4.13
+773%
|
| 4K | 64.90
−821%
| 7.05
+821%
|
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 775% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 773% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 821% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 182
+0%
|
182
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 434
+0%
|
434
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 428
+0%
|
428
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 381
+0%
|
381
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 265
+0%
|
265
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 707% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 706% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 750% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.54 | 77.14 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 220 Watt |
RTX 4070 SUPER has a 631.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 13.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
