Radeon 780M vs HD 7970M Crossfire

Place in the ranking	341	307
Place by popularity	not in top-100	61
Power efficiency	5.52	83.89
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Wimbledon XT	Hawx Point
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 May 2012 (12 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	2560	768
Core clock speed	850 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	129.6
Floating-point processing power	no data	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	System Shared
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

Portable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.8
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.1
Vulkan	-	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. 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 7970M Crossfire 15.31

Radeon 780M 17.45
+14%

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 7970M Crossfire 11119

Radeon 780M 12785
+15%

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 7970M Crossfire 31127

Radeon 780M 41622
+33.7%

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	132 −13.6%	150−160 +13.6%
Full HD	101 +181%	36 −181%
1440p	16−18 −18.8%	19 +18.8%
4K	10−12 −30%	13 +30%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −14.3%	32 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −21.9%	39 +21.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −13.5%	55−60 +13.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −14.3%	32 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +113%	15 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +1.5%	65 −1.5%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −14%	45−50 +14%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	44 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −10.3%	40−45 +10.3%
Valorant	65−70 −13.8%	70−75 +13.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −13.5%	55−60 +13.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +12%	25 −12%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +167%	12 −167%
Dota 2	55−60 +100%	29 −100%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +78.1%	32 −78.1%
Fortnite	85−90 −11.4%	95−100 +11.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +22.2%	54 −22.2%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −14%	45−50 +14%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +26.7%	45 −26.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +37.5%	32 −37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −10.5%	120−130 +10.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −10.3%	40−45 +10.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −16.3%	55−60 +16.3%
Valorant	65−70 −13.8%	70−75 +13.8%
World of Tanks	200−210 −8.4%	220−230 +8.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −13.5%	55−60 +13.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +27.3%	22 −27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +167%	12 −167%
Dota 2	55−60 −12.1%	65−70 +12.1%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −10.5%	60−65 +10.5%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +43.5%	46 −43.5%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −14%	45−50 +14%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −10.5%	120−130 +10.5%
Valorant	65−70 −13.8%	70−75 +13.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +33.3%	18 −33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +26.3%	19 −26.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.6%	110−120 +2.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
World of Tanks	110−120 −12.6%	120−130 +12.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −15.6%	35−40 +15.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −20%	45−50 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +25%	32 −25%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 −16%	27−30 +16%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −17.1%	40−45 +17.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +10%	20 −10%
Valorant	40−45 −17.5%	45−50 +17.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −14.6%	55−60 +14.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +28.6%	21 −28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 −10.7%	30−35 +10.7%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −15%	21−24 +15%
Fortnite	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +35.3%	17 −35.3%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −25%	14−16 +25%
Valorant	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%

This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 14% faster in 900p
HD 7970M Crossfire is 181% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 19% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 30% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 167% faster.
in Forza Horizon 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 780M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7970M Crossfire is ahead in 21 test (33%)
Radeon 780M is ahead in 39 tests (62%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.31	17.45
Recency	1 May 2012	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 14% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 1233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire in performance tests.

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