Radeon 780M vs RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms RX 470 Mobile by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 346 | 344 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.79 | 84.31 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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.
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 | 30−35
−16.7%
| 35
+16.7%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
−4.8%
| 22
+4.8%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−8.3%
| 13
+8.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.33 | no data |
| 1440p | 26.19 | no data |
| 4K | 45.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−25.3%
|
119
+25.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−11.4%
|
39
+11.4%
|
| God of War | 30−35
−8.8%
|
37
+8.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+15.9%
|
82
−15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+12.9%
|
31
−12.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45
−22.2%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−22.6%
|
65
+22.6%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30
−13.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−0.8%
|
130−140
+0.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+144%
|
39
−144%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24
−45.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
41
−34.1%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−13.2%
|
60
+13.2%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24
−41.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+43.2%
|
44
−43.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+20.7%
|
29
−20.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−0.8%
|
130−140
+0.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+52.2%
|
23
−52.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+41%
|
39
−41%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18
−88.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+58.6%
|
29
−58.6%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−0.8%
|
130−140
+0.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18
−55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−0.6%
|
160−170
+0.6%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−0.6%
|
160−170
+0.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+37%
|
27
−37%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+25%
|
20
−25%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21
−47.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+60%
|
15
−60%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−1.1%
|
95−100
+1.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how RX 470 Mobile and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 17% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 5% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 780M is 8% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 144% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 780M is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 470 Mobile is ahead in 22 tests (34%)
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 20 tests (31%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (35%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.50 | 16.60 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 0.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 466.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 470 Mobile and Radeon 780M.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 780M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
