Radeon HD 7850 vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V and Radeon HD 7850, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
TITAN V outperforms HD 7850 by a whopping 339% 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 | 111 | 509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.10 | 2.61 |
| Power efficiency | 12.61 | 5.52 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (8 years ago) | 5 March 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN V has 57% better value for money than HD 7850.
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 | 5120 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 55.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 1.761 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 320 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 7.0 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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:
| 1440p | 152
+407%
| 30−35
−407%
|
| 4K | 82
+356%
| 18−20
−356%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
−138%
| 8.30
+138%
|
| 4K | 36.57
−164%
| 13.83
+164%
|
- HD 7850 has 138% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- HD 7850 has 164% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.95 | 9.32 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 5 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
TITAN V has a 339% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
HD 7850, on the other hand, has 92% lower power consumption.
The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7850 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
