GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile vs GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5090 Mobile outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 638% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 474 | 16 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.08 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.94 | 57.06 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GB203 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 27 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 10496 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 990 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1515 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 496.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 31.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 112 |
| TMUs | 192 | 328 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 328 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 82 |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 896.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 12.0 |
| 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 | 21−24
−724%
| 173
+724%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−743%
| 118
+743%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−730%
| 83
+730%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 30.90 | no data |
| 1440p | 46.36 | no data |
| 4K | 64.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 390
+0%
|
390
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 301
+0%
|
301
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172
+0%
|
172
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 219
+0%
|
219
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 224
+0%
|
224
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 176
+0%
|
176
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and RTX 5090 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 5090 Mobile is 724% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5090 Mobile is 743% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5090 Mobile is 730% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.58 | 70.69 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 27 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 95 Watt |
RTX 5090 Mobile has a 637.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 163.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
