GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire with GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
HD 8970M Crossfire outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by an impressive 75% 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 | 350 | 487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.10 |
| Power efficiency | 6.55 | 3.00 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | GK110B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 192 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1536 KB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 288.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
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 | 69
+97.1%
| 35−40
−97.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 18.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+80%
|
75−80
−80%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 128
+82.9%
|
70−75
−82.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+87.3%
|
55−60
−87.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+80%
|
75−80
−80%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+87.3%
|
55−60
−87.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+80%
|
75−80
−80%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+81.4%
|
70−75
−81.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+82.2%
|
90−95
−82.2%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+76.8%
|
95−100
−76.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
This is how HD 8970M Crossfire and GTX 780 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- HD 8970M Crossfire is 97% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.98 | 9.72 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 10 September 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 250 Watt |
HD 8970M Crossfire has a 74.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 25% lower power consumption.
GTX 780 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 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.
