GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs Radeon RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
GTX 780M Mac Edition outperforms RX Vega 11 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 609 | 564 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.82 | 3.80 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Raven | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (6 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 cores | 704 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | 102.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | 2.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 44 | 128 |
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 | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 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 Connectors | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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 | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| 1440p | 5
−20%
| 6−7
+20%
|
| 4K | 12
−16.7%
| 14−16
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 54
−20.4%
|
65−70
+20.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−19.6%
|
55−60
+19.6%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and GTX 780M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 780M Mac Edition is 7% faster in 1080p
- GTX 780M Mac Edition is 20% faster in 1440p
- GTX 780M Mac Edition is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.49 | 6.72 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 8 November 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 122 Watt |
RX Vega 11 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 248.6% lower power consumption.
GTX 780M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 22.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 11 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
