AMD Radeon R9 M470 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M470 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M470
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 9% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 823 MHz
- Around 25% higher boost clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 797 MHz
- 2.4x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 2500 MHz
- 3.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 47924 vs 12815
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 15 May 2016 vs 11 May 2013 |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 823 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 797 MHz |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 2500 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 vs 12815 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
- 2.1x more texture fill rate: 102.0 GTexel / s vs 48 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 1536 vs 768
- Around 59% better floating-point performance: 2,448 gflops vs 1,536 gflops
- Around 63% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3804 vs 2331
- Around 37% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 422 vs 307
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3679 vs 1804
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3679 vs 1804
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 1674
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 1674
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 102.0 GTexel / s vs 48 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1536 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 2,448 gflops vs 1,536 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3804 vs 2331 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 422 vs 307 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3679 vs 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3679 vs 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 vs 1674 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 vs 1674 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M470
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 M470 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2331 | 3804 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 307 | 422 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 | 12815 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1804 | 3679 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1804 | 3679 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1674 | 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1674 | 3351 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 39.934 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 705.616 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.631 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.832 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 78.867 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4868 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4868 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1466 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 M470 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Kepler |
Code name | Strato | GK104 |
Launch date | 15 May 2016 | 11 May 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 761 | 764 |
Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 797 MHz |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 823 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | 2,448 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 1536 |
Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s | 102.0 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 2,080 million | 3,540 million |
CUDA cores | 1536 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 122 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Laptop size | large | large |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | |
SLI options | 1 | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 2500 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
TXAA |