GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation and AMD Radeon 780M occupy different ends of the graphics spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. In the three head-to-head tests available, the NVIDIA part wins every matchup, with the largest margin appearing in Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX 2000 Ada scores 78,074 against the Radeon 780M’s 18,602, a delta of 319.7%. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows a 268.1% advantage for NVIDIA (1,767 vs. 480), while Geekbench Vulkan is comparatively closer but still decisive, with NVIDIA leading 83,360 to 33,683, a 147.5% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a consistent pattern: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation dominates every measured workload, but the magnitude varies significantly by API and test type. Starting with 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which stresses modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the NVIDIA card posts 1,767 points versus 480 points for the Radeon 780M. That translates to a 268.1% advantage, meaning the RTX 2000 Ada delivers roughly 3.7 times the performance in this rasterization-focused benchmark. This is the most representative test for gaming and real-time 3D rendering, and the gap is substantial.

Moving to compute workloads, Geekbench OpenCL shows the largest disparity of the three tests. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada scores 78,074, while the AMD Radeon 780M manages only 18,602. The 319.7% delta suggests the RTX 2000 Ada’s dedicated architecture, with its 2,816 shading units and 88 tensor cores, provides far more raw compute throughput than the integrated Radeon 780M’s 768 shading units. OpenCL workloads often scale with shader count and memory bandwidth, and NVIDIA’s 256.0 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 memory versus the 780M’s system-shared memory explains part of this gap.

The Vulkan test narrows the margin somewhat, but NVIDIA still wins by 147.5%. The RTX 2000 Ada posts 83,360 points, while the Radeon 780M achieves 33,683. Vulkan’s lower overhead can benefit the integrated GPU’s architecture, yet the NVIDIA part’s higher boost clock of 2130 MHz versus 2900 MHz for the AMD does not close the gap. The RTX 2000 Ada’s 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration that the Radeon 780M’s 12 RT cores cannot match in this workload.

Across all three tests, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins 3 out of 3 matchups. The average benchmark score reinforces this: NVIDIA sits at 18,954, with a percentile ranking of 63 among all GPUs, while AMD’s Radeon 780M averages 17,588, ranking at the 61st percentile. The delta between their average scores is only about 7.8%, which seems modest, but the head-to-head tests reveal that the NVIDIA card’s wins are concentrated in the most demanding modern workloads, whereas the AMD part’s average is buoyed by its performance in legacy or lighter tests not covered in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins every benchmark where both products were tested, so the clear narrative is NVIDIA’s dominance across DX12, OpenCL, and Vulkan. For users running 3DMark Steel Nomad, a DirectX 12 Ultimate stress test, the RTX 2000 Ada is the only choice, offering 268.1% higher scores. For compute tasks via OpenCL, the NVIDIA card is more than four times faster, which matters for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference. Vulkan gaming or compute sees a 147.5% advantage, which is still overwhelming.

The Radeon 780M does not win any benchmark in this comparison, but its data shows where it might be adequate. Its 8.909 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while less than the RTX 2000 Ada’s 12.00 TFLOPS, is not trivial for an integrated part. The 780M’s 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate are within 10% and 26% of the NVIDIA card’s respective rates, respectively. In lighter workloads, such as 2D desktop rendering or older DirectX titles, the 780M could provide playable performance, though no such benchmarks are in the head-to-head set. The RTX 2000 Ada’s PassMark G2D score of 1,072 and G3D score of 16,927 indicate strong 2D and 3D capability, but the Radeon 780M’s lack of PassMark results in this pack leaves its legacy API performance unmeasured.

For users constrained to integrated graphics, the Radeon 780M’s 15 W TDP is a clear advantage in power efficiency, but the RTX 2000 Ada’s 70 W TDP is still modest for a discrete card. The NVIDIA card’s dual-slot form factor and lack of power connectors (drawing solely from the PCIe slot) make it a practical upgrade for small workstations. The Radeon 780M, being an IGP, requires no card at all, which suits ultra-portable laptops or compact desktops, but the performance trade-off is severe in every measured test.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada scores 1,767 points versus 480 for the Radeon 780M, a 268.1% advantage. This is the largest gap in the DirectX 12 test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation averages 18,954 points, while the Radeon 780M averages 17,588 points. The NVIDIA card ranks at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the AMD part’s 61st percentile.

Q: What is the closest head-to-head result between these two?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the smallest margin, with NVIDIA leading 83,360 to 33,683, a 147.5% difference. Even the closest test is a decisive NVIDIA win.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the three head-to-head benchmarks (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan), the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins all three, with winsA equal to 3 and winsB equal to 0.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS. This 34.7% advantage in raw compute aligns with the Geekbench OpenCL result, where NVIDIA leads by 319.7%.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each product based on average score?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, which scores 19,030, just 0.4% higher. The Radeon 780M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 560, scoring 17,551, which is 0.2% lower.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 2000 Ada uses a 5 nm process, while the Radeon 780M uses a 4 nm process, both from TSMC. The NVIDIA chip (AD107) contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9M transistors per mm². The AMD Phoenix chip has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a higher density of 142.6M per mm².

Memory is a fundamental split: the RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 780M uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, bus width, or bandwidth figures, its memory performance is system dependent. The NVIDIA card’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the AMD part has no dedicated memory clock.

Core counts diverge sharply. The RTX 2000 Ada has 2,816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, plus 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores. The Radeon 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 RT cores and no tensor cores. Clock speeds also differ: NVIDIA runs at 1620 MHz base and 2130 MHz boost, while AMD runs at 800 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost, the AMD boost clock is higher, but with far fewer cores.

Power and physical specs differ completely. The RTX 2000 Ada has a 70 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Radeon 780M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the AMD part has no dimensions. Display outputs: NVIDIA offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD’s outputs are motherboard dependent. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8, but the NVIDIA card’s release date is 2024-02-11, while the Radeon 780M’s is 2024-01-30.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational and fundamental. The RTX 2000 Ada is built on Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Workstation Ada generation, succeeding Workstation Ampere and preceding Blackwell PRO W. The Radeon 780M uses RDNA 3.0, in the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation, succeeding Navi II IGP and preceding Navi III IGP. The NVIDIA part is a discrete GPU, while the AMD part is an integrated graphics processor.

The RTX 2000 Ada’s Ada Lovelace architecture includes dedicated tensor cores (88 of them) and RT cores (22), enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The Radeon 780M has 12 RT cores but no tensor cores, meaning no dedicated AI acceleration hardware. This explains the NVIDIA card’s massive lead in Geekbench OpenCL, where tensor core-accelerated operations can be leveraged.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. However, the underlying implementations differ: NVIDIA’s 5 nm node with a lower transistor count but higher density (118.9M/mm²) versus AMD’s 4 nm node with more transistors and even higher density (142.6M/mm²). The AMD chip integrates the CPU and GPU on one die (Phoenix), which is why it can share system memory, a fundamental architectural choice that limits memory bandwidth compared to dedicated GDDR6.

The Radeon 780M’s higher boost clock (2900 MHz vs. 2130 MHz) partially compensates for its lower core count, but not enough. Its FP32 throughput is 8.909 TFLOPS, which is 74% of the RTX 2000 Ada’s 12.00 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is close (92.80 GPixel/s vs. 102.2 GPixel/s), but texture rate is further behind (139.2 GTexel/s vs. 187.4 GTexel/s). The NVIDIA part’s 88 TMUs versus 48 TMUs explains this gap.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms the AMD Radeon 780M in every benchmark where both were tested, with deltas ranging from 147.5% to 319.7%. For any workload represented in the head-to-head set, DirectX 12 gaming, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan rendering, the RTX 2000 Ada is the superior choice. Its 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a massive advantage over the 780M’s system-shared memory, which is system dependent and cannot guarantee consistent performance.

Users who need a discrete GPU for workstation tasks, such as 3D rendering, GPU compute, or AI inference, should choose the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. Its 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores, combined with 12.00 TFLOPS FP32, make it a capable option for modern workloads. The 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors (drawing power solely from the PCIe slot) make it easy to install in existing systems with a 250 W PSU recommendation.

The Radeon 780M, with its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor, is only appropriate for systems where a discrete GPU is impossible, ultra-thin laptops or compact desktops with no expansion slot. Its 8.909 TFLOPS FP32 is respectable for an integrated part, and its 12 RT cores provide some ray tracing capability, but the absence of tensor cores and dedicated memory limits its ceiling. The data shows the 780M is closer to the RTX 2000 Ada in pixel rate (92.80 GPixel/s vs. 102.2 GPixel/s) than in compute, so it may handle simple 2D or light 3D tasks, but it loses every head-to-head test by a wide margin.

Given the average benchmark scores (18,954 for NVIDIA, 17,588 for AMD) and percentile rankings (63rd vs. 61st), the RTX 2000 Ada is the higher-performing product overall. The verdict from the data is clear: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only choice for performance-critical applications, while the Radeon 780M serves as a power-efficient fallback for integrated-only systems.