RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon HD 7770M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7770M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

HD 7770M
2012
1 GB GDDR5, 32 Watt
3.42

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms HD 7770M by a whopping 1223% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking73778
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data89.15
Power efficiency7.3344.34
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameChelseaAD107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date24 April 2012 (12 years ago)12 February 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores5122816
Core clock speed675 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2130 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate21.60187.4
Floating-point processing power0.6912 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs3288
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s256.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
−1150%
100−105
+1150%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
−1150%
100−105
+1150%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−1150%
150−160
+1150%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Fortnite 16−18
−1194%
220−230
+1194%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1167%
190−200
+1167%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−1186%
180−190
+1186%
Valorant 45−50
−1150%
600−650
+1150%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
−1150%
100−105
+1150%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−1150%
150−160
+1150%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
−1171%
750−800
+1171%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Dota 2 30−33
−1067%
350−400
+1067%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Fortnite 16−18
−1194%
220−230
+1194%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1167%
190−200
+1167%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
−1122%
110−120
+1122%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−1186%
180−190
+1186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Valorant 45−50
−1150%
600−650
+1150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−1150%
150−160
+1150%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Dota 2 30−33
−1067%
350−400
+1067%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1186%
90−95
+1186%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1167%
190−200
+1167%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−1186%
180−190
+1186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Valorant 45−50
−1150%
600−650
+1150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
−1194%
220−230
+1194%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−1150%
300−310
+1150%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−1150%
300−310
+1150%
Valorant 30−35
−1150%
400−450
+1150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−1150%
100−105
+1150%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1200%
65−70
+1200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
−1150%
75−80
+1150%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−1067%
35−40
+1067%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−1213%
210−220
+1213%
Valorant 16−18
−1213%
210−220
+1213%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Dota 2 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1067%
35−40
+1067%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1067%
35−40
+1067%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.42 45.25
Recency 24 April 2012 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 70 Watt

HD 7770M has 118.8% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 1223.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7770M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7770M is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

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.


AMD Radeon HD 7770M
Radeon HD 7770M
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

Other comparisons

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 8 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7770M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 29 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 7770M or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.