Radeon 780M vs R9 285

Place in the ranking	313	298
Place by popularity	not in top-100	47
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.57	no data
Power efficiency	6.30	84.29
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Tonga	Phoenix
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)	6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	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 cores	1792	768
Core clock speed	918 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	102.8	129.6
Floating-point processing power	3.29 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	176.0 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2	Portable Device Dependent
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.170	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.

R9 285 17.31

Radeon 780M 18.29
+5.7%

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.

R9 285 6680

Radeon 780M 7058
+5.7%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570
+7.4%

Radeon 780M 7977

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	35−40 −5.7%	37 +5.7%
1440p	18−21 −22.2%	22 +22.2%
4K	12−14 −16.7%	14 +16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.11	no data
1440p	13.83	no data
4K	20.75	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	31 +0%	31 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +0%	24 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	54 +0%	54 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +0%	23 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	53 +0%	53 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	46 +0%	46 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 +0%	29 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	32 +0%	32 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33

+0%

30−33

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +0%	15 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

This is how R9 285 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 6% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 22% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.31	18.29
Recency	2 September 2014	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 1166.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 285 and Radeon 780M.

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