ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS with Radeon HD 5770, including specs and performance data.
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS outperforms ATI HD 5770 by a whopping 139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 443 | 677 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.77 |
| Power efficiency | 24.20 | 2.81 |
| Architecture | no data | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | no data | Juniper |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 26 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 34.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 208 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | LPDDR5x | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8448 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 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 | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| 900p | 55−60
+129%
| 24
−129%
|
| Full HD | 32
−56.3%
| 50
+56.3%
|
| 1440p | 14
+180%
| 5−6
−180%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.18 |
| 1440p | no data | 31.80 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+126%
|
18−20
−126%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+104%
|
70−75
−104%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+126%
|
18−20
−126%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+126%
|
18−20
−126%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+145%
|
30−35
−145%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+56.3%
|
30−35
−56.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+150%
|
40−45
−150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 129% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 56% faster in 1080p
- Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 180% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is ahead in 55 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.12 | 3.81 |
| Recency | 26 October 2023 | 13 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 108 Watt |
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS has a 139.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 260% lower power consumption.
The Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5770 in performance tests.
Be aware that Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is a notebook card while Radeon HD 5770 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
