RTX A2000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms GTX 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 433 | 215 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.27 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.94 | 18.71 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 893 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1358 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 108.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 6.953 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 192 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 4.0 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 176.0 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 | No outputs |
| 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 8.6 |
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 | 30−35
−163%
| 79
+163%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−169%
| 43
+169%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−164%
| 37
+164%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 21.63 | no data |
| 1440p | 40.56 | no data |
| 4K | 46.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 163% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 169% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 164% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.67 | 25.77 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 95 Watt |
RTX A2000 Mobile has a 141.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 163.2% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 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 card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
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.
