GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 M395X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X and GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.46
+101%

R9 M395X outperforms GTX 780M Mac Edition by a whopping 101% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking380560
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.413.79
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystGK104
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)8 November 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 cores20481536
Core clock speed723 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speedno data797 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate92.54102.0
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs128128

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
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+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
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

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+120%
40−45
−120%
Hitman 3 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+111%
35−40
−111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+120%
40−45
−120%
Hitman 3 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+111%
35−40
−111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+120%
40−45
−120%
Hitman 3 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+111%
35−40
−111%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+127%
30−33
−127%
Hitman 3 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+110%
40−45
−110%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Hitman 3 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+117%
30−33
−117%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.46 6.69
Recency 5 May 2015 8 November 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 122 Watt

R9 M395X has a 101.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GTX 780M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 104.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M395X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.


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 R9 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3 15 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X 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.