GPU Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 and AMD Radeon 780M in adjacent positions in the overall performance ranking, with average scores of 17,639 and 17,588 respectively. This 0.3% deltaPct difference is statistically negligible, yet the individual test results reveal a far more lopsided contest. In the three head-to-head benchmarks available, the RTX 4060 wins all three, with margins ranging from a modest 44.4% advantage in Vulkan compute to a staggering 411% lead in OpenCL. The 780M, for its part, posts a competitive average score that places it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro 460, suggesting its strength lies in sustained aggregate performance rather than peak throughput in any single test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive separation occurs in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX 4060 scores 95,057 against the 780M’s 18,602. That is a deltaPct of 411%, meaning the discrete GPU delivers over five times the raw compute throughput in this workload. This test typically stresses general-purpose shader execution, and the RTX 4060’s 3,072 shading units versus the 780M’s 768 explain the magnitude of the gap, a 4:1 ratio in shader count that translates directly into the observed performance differential.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows a similar pattern, albeit less extreme. The RTX 4060 scores 2,302 against the 780M’s 480, a 379.6% deltaPct. This modern DirectX 12 workload is more representative of contemporary gaming, and the RTX 4060’s 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores provide architectural advantages that the 780M’s 12 RT cores cannot match. The 780M’s score of 480 places it in a fundamentally different performance tier for this benchmark, despite the near-identical average scores.

The closest contest is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 4060 scores 48,643 and the 780M scores 33,683, a 44.4% deltaPct. Vulkan’s lower-level API allows the 780M’s RDNA 3.0 architecture to express itself more efficiently relative to OpenCL, but the RTX 4060 still maintains a clear lead. This narrower margin suggests that in well-optimized Vulkan titles, the 780M can approach roughly two-thirds of the RTX 4060’s performance, whereas in OpenCL or DX12-heavy workloads the gap widens substantially.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 wins outright in every benchmark where both products have recorded scores. Its 3-0 sweep in the head-to-head table is unambiguous. The data shows its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads (411% lead) and modern DX12 gaming (379.6% lead), with Vulkan performance representing its relative weakest showing (44.4% lead). For users prioritizing peak frame rates in DX12 titles or GPU compute tasks, the RTX 4060 is the clear choice based on these metrics.

The 780M, despite zero head-to-head wins, demonstrates its utility through the aggregate benchmark picture. Its average score of 17,588 is within 0.3% of the RTX 4060’s 17,639, which is remarkable given the 780M’s 15 W TDP versus the RTX 4060’s 115 W. This suggests the 780M excels in scenarios where sustained performance over varied workloads matters more than peak throughput. Its nearestRivals data shows it sits between the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.4% behind), indicating consistent mid-range performance across the board. For integrated graphics in a laptop or compact desktop, the 780M offers a level of capability that rivals much larger discrete cards in average terms.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is process node and transistor budget. The RTX 4060 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9M / mm². The 780M uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 142.6M / mm². The 780M’s Phoenix chip packs over 6 billion more transistors into a slightly larger die, reflecting its role as an integrated processor with a full SoC design.

Core counts diverge sharply. The RTX 4060 features 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, alongside 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores. The 780M offers 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 RT cores and no tensor cores whatsoever. This 4:1 ratio in shading units and 8:1 ratio in tensor cores (96 vs. 0) explains the massive compute benchmark gaps. The RTX 4060’s FP32 throughput is 15.11 TFLOPS against the 780M’s 8.909 TFLOPS, a 69.6% advantage that manifests in the OpenCL test.

Memory architecture is the other major differentiator. The RTX 4060 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 780M uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the 780M’s memory performance varies based on the host system’s RAM configuration, whereas the RTX 4060 has fixed, predictable bandwidth. The RTX 4060’s memory clock is 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective), while the 780M’s memory clock is simply "System Shared."

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. For discrete GPU workloads, dedicated gaming PCs, content creation, or any task requiring sustained high-throughput compute, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is the superior choice. It wins every head-to-head benchmark, with leads from 44.4% to 411%, and its dedicated memory subsystem eliminates the variance of shared system memory. Its 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs matches the 780M’s percentile, but the RTX 4060 achieves this with far higher peak performance.

For integrated graphics scenarios, thin-and-light laptops, mini PCs, or systems where the 15 W TDP is a hard constraint, the AMD Radeon 780M is the pragmatic pick. Its average score of 17,588 is within 0.3% of the RTX 4060, yet it consumes 100 W less power (15 W vs. 115 W) and requires no additional power connectors or dual-slot cooling. The 780M’s Vulkan score of 33,683 shows it can handle modern APIs respectably, and its active production status means it remains available for new designs. The RTX 4060 is end-of-life, which may matter for long-term availability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 has an average score of 17,639, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 780M’s 17,588. This places both cards at the 61st percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any test?

A: The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest gap, with the RTX 4060 scoring 95,057 versus the 780M’s 18,602, a deltaPct of 411%. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows a 379.6% deltaPct (2,302 vs. 480).

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 4060 has a TDP of 115 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a 1x 12-pin connector. The 780M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 4060 has 3,072 shading units, while the 780M has 768. This 4:1 ratio directly contributes to the RTX 4060’s 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the 780M’s 8.909 TFLOPS.

Q: Is the 780M competitive in any benchmark?

A: The 780M’s closest result is Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 33,683 against the RTX 4060’s 48,643, a 44.4% deltaPct. Its average score of 17,588 is within 0.3% of the RTX 4060’s average, indicating strong sustained performance.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The RTX 4060 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 272.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses System Shared memory with bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 | AMD Radeon 780M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1830 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2460 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 272.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 768 |

| TMUs | 96 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | 96 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 118.1 GPixel/s | 92.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 236.2 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 15.11 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 15.11 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 115 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 12-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-05-17 | 2024-01-30 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 30 | Navi II IGP |

| Successor | GeForce 50 | Navi III IGP |

| Dimensions | 240 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | Not specified |

| Launch MSRP | 299 USD | None |