Radeon HD 6990M vs HD 7770

Place in the ranking	606	621
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.45	no data
Power efficiency	4.87	3.63
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	Blackcomb
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	15 February 2012 (12 years ago)	12 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	1120
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	715 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	40.00	40.04
Floating-point processing power	1.28 TFLOPS	1.602 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	40	56

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	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	115.2 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 7770 5.65
+7.4%

HD 6990M 5.26

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.

HD 7770 3098

HD 6990M 3227
+4.2%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 7770 14073

HD 6990M 15113
+7.4%

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	47 −14.9%	54 +14.9%
Full HD	46 −28.3%	59 +28.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.46

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +4.5%	21−24 −4.5%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Valorant	18−20 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Dota 2	18−20 +11.8%	16−18 −11.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +8%	24−27 −8%
Fortnite	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +4.5%	21−24 −4.5%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +11.8%	16−18 −11.8%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +6.8%	40−45 −6.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Valorant	18−20 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%
World of Tanks	128 +50.6%	85−90 −50.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Dota 2	18−20 +11.8%	16−18 −11.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +8%	24−27 −8%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +4.5%	21−24 −4.5%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +6.8%	40−45 −6.8%
Valorant	18−20 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +2.9%	30−35 −2.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
World of Tanks	40−45 +7.9%	35−40 −7.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Fortnite	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how HD 7770 and HD 6990M compete in popular games:

HD 6990M is 15% faster in 900p
HD 6990M is 28% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7770 is 51% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7770 is ahead in 49 tests (79%)
there's a draw in 13 tests (21%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.65	5.26
Recency	15 February 2012	12 July 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	100 Watt

HD 7770 has a 7.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7770 and Radeon HD 6990M.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7770 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6990M is a notebook one.

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