Radeon 780M vs Pro Vega II

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega II
2019
32 GB HBM2, 475 Watt
40.56
+122%

Pro Vega II outperforms 780M by a whopping 122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking102304
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Cost-effectiveness evaluation16.88no data
Power efficiency5.8984.13
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 20Hawx Point
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 June 2019 (5 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,199 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 cores4096768
Core clock speed1574 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1720 MHz2700 MHz
Number of transistors13,230 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)475 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate440.3129.6
Floating-point processing power14.09 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25648
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

InterfaceApple MPXPCIe 4.0 x8
WidthQuad-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount32 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width4096 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed806 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth825.3 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x ThunderboltPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.12.1
Vulkan1.31.3

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.

Pro Vega II 40.56
+122%
Radeon 780M 18.29

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega II 15596
+122%
Radeon 780M 7032

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 HD75−80
+114%
35
−114%
1440p35−40
+106%
17
−106%
4K30−35
+114%
14
−114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.32no data
1440p62.83no data
4K73.30no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Elden Ring 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Elden Ring 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+0%
54
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
World of Tanks 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Elden Ring 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+0%
19
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21
+0%
21
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Pro Vega II and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega II is 114% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega II is 106% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega II is 114% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 40.56 18.29
Recency 3 June 2019 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 7 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 475 Watt 15 Watt

Pro Vega II has a 121.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 3066.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 780M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.


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

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 Pro Vega II
Radeon Pro Vega II
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

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.


2.4 81 vote

Rate Radeon Pro Vega II on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1624 votes

Rate Radeon 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.