UHD Graphics 770 vs Radeon HD 7770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7770M with UHD Graphics 770, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics 770 outperforms HD 7770M by an impressive 80% 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 | 747 | 599 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 85 |
| Power efficiency | 7.30 | 28.00 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Generation 12.2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | Raptor Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (2 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.8448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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.
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 | 10−11
−80%
| 18
+80%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−85.7%
| 13
+85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−420%
|
52
+420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−240%
|
34
+240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
17
+113%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−200%
|
18
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−64.4%
|
95−100
+64.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−43.3%
|
43
+43.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−100%
|
16
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−80%
|
18
+80%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−56.5%
|
35−40
+56.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−81.3%
|
27−30
+81.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−40%
|
14
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 7770M and UHD Graphics 770 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 770 is 80% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 770 is 86% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7770M is 20% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the UHD Graphics 770 is 420% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7770M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- UHD Graphics 770 is ahead in 54 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.30 | 5.94 |
| Recency | 24 April 2012 | 27 September 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics 770 has a 80% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 113.3% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 770 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 UHD Graphics 770 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.
