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.
780M Mac Edition outperforms RX Vega 11 by a significant 24% 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 | 679 | 631 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.00 | 3.90 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Raven | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (7 years ago) | 8 November 2013 (12 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 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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
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 | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
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 | 6
−16.7%
| 7−8
+16.7%
|
| 4K | 12
−16.7%
| 14−16
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Fortnite | 86
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
−18.4%
|
45−50
+18.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21%
|
75−80
+21%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−14.9%
|
100−105
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−19.6%
|
55−60
+19.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21%
|
75−80
+21%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 25
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
−20.7%
|
35−40
+20.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21%
|
75−80
+21%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 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 17% faster in 1440p
- GTX 780M Mac Edition is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.00 | 6.18 |
| 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 23.6% 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 graphics card while GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
