Quadro FX 770M vs Radeon R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with Quadro FX 770M, including specs and performance data.
R5 M255 outperforms FX 770M by a whopping 147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1019 | 1228 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.11 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | G96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 October 2014 (10 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $527 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 384 | 32 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7219 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-II |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 25.6 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 21
+163%
| 8−9
−163%
|
| Full HD | 13
+160%
| 5−6
−160%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 105.40 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+76.5%
|
16−18
−76.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R5 M255 and FX 770M compete in popular games:
- R5 M255 is 163% faster in 900p
- R5 M255 is 160% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M255 is 700% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 770M is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M255 is ahead in 25 tests (81%)
- FX 770M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.21 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 12 October 2014 | 14 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
R5 M255 has a 146.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M255 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 770M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
