Radeon RX 5500M vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon RX 5500M, including specs and performance data.
5500M outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by a considerable 46% 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 | 492 | 402 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.01 | 12.96 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) | 7 October 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1645 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 144.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 2 MB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 | 35−40
−62.9%
| 57
+62.9%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−52.5%
| 61
+52.5%
|
| 4K | 18−21
−66.7%
| 30
+66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.54 | no data |
| 1440p | 16.23 | no data |
| 4K | 36.06 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 191
+0%
|
191
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Valorant | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 175
+0%
|
175
+0%
|
| Valorant | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and RX 5500M compete in popular games:
- RX 5500M is 63% faster in 1080p
- RX 5500M is 53% faster in 1440p
- RX 5500M is 67% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.77 | 14.31 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 7 October 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 85 Watt |
RX 5500M has a 46% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 194% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5500M 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 Radeon RX 5500M 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.
