GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs Radeon Pro WX 7100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 7100 with GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 7100
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 130 Watt
18.97
+203%

Pro WX 7100 outperforms GTX 780M Mac Edition by a whopping 203% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking278569
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.91no data
Power efficiency10.763.79
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameEllesmereGK104
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date10 November 2016 (8 years ago)8 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

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 cores23041536
Core clock speed1188 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed1243 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate179.0102.0
Floating-point processing power5.728 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs144128

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/s160.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+219%
27−30
−219%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+238%
16−18
−238%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+236%
14−16
−236%
Valorant 80−85
+204%
27−30
−204%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Dota 2 70−75
+243%
21−24
−243%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%
Fortnite 100−110
+206%
35−40
−206%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+219%
27−30
−219%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+238%
16−18
−238%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+238%
21−24
−238%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+240%
40−45
−240%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+236%
14−16
−236%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%
Valorant 80−85
+204%
27−30
−204%
World of Tanks 230−240
+211%
75−80
−211%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Dota 2 70−75
+243%
21−24
−243%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+219%
27−30
−219%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+238%
16−18
−238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+240%
40−45
−240%
Valorant 80−85
+204%
27−30
−204%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+213%
55−60
−213%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
World of Tanks 130−140
+207%
45−50
−207%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+231%
16−18
−231%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+222%
9−10
−222%
Valorant 50−55
+231%
16−18
−231%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Dota 2 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+239%
18−20
−239%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%
Fortnite 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+233%
9−10
−233%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Valorant 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.97 6.27
Recency 10 November 2016 8 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 122 Watt

Pro WX 7100 has a 202.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 780M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 6.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition 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 WX 7100
Radeon Pro WX 7100
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition

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.


3.9 58 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 7100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition 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.