Radeon X800 PRO vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking398not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.58no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)R400 (2004−2008)
GPU code nameGK110BR423
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 September 2013 (10 years ago)1 May 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data
Current price$270 (0.4x MSRP)$307

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2304no data
Core clock speed863 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,080 million160 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt48 Watt
Texture fill rate173.25.700
Floating-point performance4,156 gflopsno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x Molex

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB256 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.4 GB/s28.8 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)9.0b (9_2)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA3.5no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 September 2013 1 May 2004
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 48 Watt

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 and Radeon X800 PRO. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
Radeon X800 PRO

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 10 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2 votes

Rate Radeon X800 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.