GeForce GTX 770M SLI vs Radeon R9 M395X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X and GeForce GTX 770M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
11.62
+5.3%

R9 M395X outperforms GTX 770M SLI by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking393403
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.245.81
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystno data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)30 May 2013 (11 years ago)

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 cores20481920
Core clock speed723 MHz811 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million2x 2540 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate92.54no data
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI options-+

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 amount4 GB2x 3 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2x 192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz4000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCLNot Listedno data
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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

Atomic Heart 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+4.9%
40−45
−4.9%
Fortnite 70−75
+4.3%
70−75
−4.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5.9%
50−55
−5.9%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+5.3%
35−40
−5.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+7%
40−45
−7%
Valorant 110−120
+3.8%
100−110
−3.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+3.5%
170−180
−3.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Dota 2 80−85
+3.7%
80−85
−3.7%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+4.9%
40−45
−4.9%
Fortnite 70−75
+4.3%
70−75
−4.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5.9%
50−55
−5.9%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+5.3%
35−40
−5.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+4.3%
45−50
−4.3%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+7%
40−45
−7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Valorant 110−120
+3.8%
100−110
−3.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+5.8%
50−55
−5.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Dota 2 80−85
+3.7%
80−85
−3.7%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+4.9%
40−45
−4.9%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5.9%
50−55
−5.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+7%
40−45
−7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Valorant 110−120
+3.8%
100−110
−3.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+4.3%
70−75
−4.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+5.6%
90−95
−5.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+15.4%
90−95
−15.4%
Valorant 130−140
+4.7%
120−130
−4.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+3.8%
24−27
−3.8%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+6.9%
27−30
−6.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+3.8%
24−27
−3.8%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Valorant 65−70
+6.3%
60−65
−6.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Dota 2 45−50
+7%
40−45
−7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M395X is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M395X is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.62 11.03
Recency 5 May 2015 30 May 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 150 Watt

R9 M395X has a 5.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GTX 770M SLI, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M395X and GeForce GTX 770M SLI.

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 R9 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M SLI
GeForce GTX 770M SLI

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.


4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 770M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M395X or GeForce GTX 770M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.