AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon 780M and the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is complicated by the fact that the database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries. The 780M has recorded scores in three separate tests, while the RX 7400 OEM has no benchmark scores recorded at all. This makes a direct numeric comparison impossible based solely on the available data.

However, the 780M's individual scores provide a reference point. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it records a score of 480. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 18,602, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 33,683. These numbers place the 780M at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,588.

The RX 7400 OEM sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but with an average benchmark score of 0 and no individual test scores, the database treats it as an unmeasured part. The percentile ranking likely derives from its specifications rather than measured performance. This is an unusual situation: a product with a known percentile placement but zero recorded performance data.

The nearest rivals for the 780M offer some context. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores an average of 17,551, which is 0.2 percent lower than the 780M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17,639, 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 posts 17,666, 0.4 percent higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 sits at 17,509, 0.5 percent lower. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating the 780M delivers performance tightly clustered with several very different GPUs.

For the RX 7400 OEM, the absence of rivals and scores in the database means any head-to-head analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences rather than measured outcomes. The data does not support claims of superiority in either direction. What the database does show is a clear distinction in the completeness of each product's benchmark record.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 780M is a fully measured product with a substantial set of benchmark results, an average score of 17,588, and a 61st percentile placement. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has no measured benchmarks, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile placement. From a purely empirical standpoint, the 780M is the only one of the two with quantifiable performance in the database.

The 780M's average score places it within 0.5 percent of four different rivals spanning professional, gaming, and older generations. This suggests its performance profile is well established. The RX 7400 OEM, by contrast, offers no measured evidence of its capabilities. Its 50th percentile placement is the only performance-related data point, and without benchmark scores, that placement cannot be verified against actual results.

For a user seeking a GPU with documented performance, the 780M is the clear choice based on the database. For a user evaluating the RX 7400 OEM, the data provides no measured basis for selection. The 780M also has a higher transistor density at 142.6 million per square millimeter versus 65.2 million, and it uses a more advanced 4 nm process compared to 6 nm. These specification differences align with the 780M's more complete performance record.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the 780M has proven performance numbers, while the RX 7400 OEM does not. Any decision between them must weigh the 780M's verified results against the RX 7400 OEM's lack of recorded data.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 780M?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588 across its recorded tests.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the RX 7400 OEM has no recorded benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: How does the 780M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060?

A: The RTX 4060 has an average score of 17,639, which is 0.3 percent higher than the 780M's 17,588.

Q: What percentile does each GPU occupy among all GPUs in the database?

A: The 780M is at the 61st percentile, while the RX 7400 OEM is at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The 780M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the RX 7400 OEM has a boost clock of 1100 MHz.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The 780M has a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter, while the RX 7400 OEM has 65.2 million per square millimeter.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The 780M uses a 4 nm process node, while the RX 7400 OEM uses 6 nm. Both are manufactured by TSMC. The 780M has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 square millimeter die, whereas the RX 7400 OEM has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 square millimeter die. The 780M's transistor density is 142.6 million per square millimeter, compared to 65.2 million for the RX 7400 OEM.

Clock speeds show a significant divergence. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The RX 7400 OEM has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different: the 780M uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the system, while the RX 7400 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources favor the RX 7400 OEM in raw counts. It has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Despite this, the 780M posts higher pixel and texture rates: 92.80 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, and 139.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the RX 7400 OEM.

Power and physical specifications differ. The 780M has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and requires no suggested PSU. The RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W, is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The RX 7400 OEM has a length of 167 mm (6.6 inches). Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 780M, while the RX 7400 OEM features 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

The 780M and RX 7400 OEM both use the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and generations. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip and is classified under "Navi III IGP (Phoenix)," with a generation field of "Navi III IGP." The RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish," and is classified under "Navi III (RX 7000)" with a generation of "Navi III (RX 7000)."

The process node difference is significant: 4 nm for the 780M versus 6 nm for the RX 7400 OEM. Both are from TSMC, but the 780M achieves a much higher transistor density, 142.6 million per square millimeter versus 65.2 million. The 780M also packs more total transistors, 25,390 million, onto a smaller die of 178 square millimeters. The RX 7400 OEM has fewer transistors, 13,300 million, on a larger die of 204 square millimeters.

The memory architecture is a fundamental difference. The 780M relies on system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making its bandwidth system dependent. The RX 7400 OEM has dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128 bit bus and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This affects how each GPU accesses data, though both use PCIe 4.0 x8.

Ray tracing capabilities differ in core counts, with 12 RT cores on the 780M and 28 on the RX 7400 OEM. The 780M has a higher boost clock at 2900 MHz, while the RX 7400 OEM operates at a much lower 1100 MHz boost. The 780M also has a higher base clock at 800 MHz versus 330 MHz. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The 780M's predecessor is "Navi II IGP" and its successor is "Navi III IGP." The RX 7400 OEM's predecessor is "Navi II" and its successor is "Navi IV." Release dates differ as well: the 780M launched on January 30, 2024, while the RX 7400 OEM launched on August 7, 2025.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on recorded data, the AMD Radeon 780M wins in every measurable category. It has an average benchmark score of 17,588 versus 0 for the RX 7400 OEM. It holds the 61st percentile among all GPUs versus the 50th for the RX 7400 OEM. The 780M delivers higher pixel rate at 92.80 GPixel/s, higher texture rate at 139.2 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 performance at 8.909 TFLOPS. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz dwarfs the RX 7400 OEM's 1100 MHz. The 780M also uses a more advanced 4 nm process and has a higher transistor density.

The RX 7400 OEM wins in raw hardware counts. It has more shading units (1792 versus 768), more TMUs (112 versus 48), more ROPs (64 versus 32), and more ray tracing cores (28 versus 12). It also has dedicated memory with 8 GB of GDDR6 and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 780M depends on system memory. The RX 7400 OEM is a single-slot card with a 167 mm length, making it a discrete GPU, while the 780M is an IGP with no slot width.

For use cases, the 780M wins in scenarios where measured performance matters. Its benchmark scores indicate it can handle tasks that the RX 7400 OEM's zero scores cannot substantiate. The 780M's higher FP32 and texture rates suggest it can process graphics workloads efficiently despite fewer compute units. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power systems, while the RX 7400 OEM's 55 W TDP requires more power and a 250 W PSU recommendation.

The RX 7400 OEM wins in scenarios requiring dedicated memory. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed memory pool, which can be advantageous for applications that need consistent memory performance without system sharing. Its higher shading unit and ROP counts may offer advantages in workloads that scale with these resources, though the lack of benchmark data leaves this unverified.

The data does not support a definitive use-case split beyond these observations. The 780M has proven performance numbers, while the RX 7400 OEM has architectural advantages that remain unmeasured.