GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX A400 and GeForce GTX 770M represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by over a decade of architectural progress. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, but it is a decisive one: in Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the GTX 770M’s 8,552, a 167.1% advantage. This single figure encapsulates the generational leap in compute throughput, but the full picture requires examining the underlying specifications and the context of their respective performance tiers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the the benchmark database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it heavily favors the RTX A400. The A400’s score of 22,844 is more than 2.5 times the GTX 770M’s 8,552, translating to a 167.1% delta. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a landslide victory that reflects the fundamental differences in their compute architectures. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute workload, so this result is a strong indicator of the A400’s superiority in tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing.

Beyond that single comparison, the overall benchmark averages tell a similar story, though with less dramatic separation. The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the GTX 770M sits at 6,000. This puts the A400 at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with the GTX 770M also at the 35th percentile. Their nearest rivals confirm they are in the same performance class overall: the A400’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, which scores 6,077 (a 0% delta), followed by the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (-0.6%), the Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5%), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1%). For the GTX 770M, its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 (0%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.1%), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.2%). These figures show that while the A400 is the faster card in the OpenCL test, both cards occupy a similar tier when looking at aggregate performance across multiple benchmark types.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The RTX A400 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 770M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 2,540 million transistors on a slightly larger 221 mm² die, yielding a density of just 11.5M per mm². The A400’s process advantage allows for far more complex circuitry in a similar physical footprint.

The compute resources differ significantly in configuration. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores. The GTX 770M has more shading units (960) and more TMUs (80) and ROPs (24), but it lacks RT and tensor cores entirely. This is a critical distinction: the A400 supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads via its tensor cores, while the GTX 770M cannot. Clock speeds also favor the A400, which runs at a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, compared to the GTX 770M’s 706 MHz base and 797 MHz boost. The A400’s FP32 compute is 2.706 TFLOPS, nearly double the GTX 770M’s 1.530 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is identical at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the GTX 770M has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations also differ. The A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 770M has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, resulting in nearly identical bandwidth at 96.19 GB/s. While the GTX 770M’s wider bus compensates for slower memory clocks (4 Gbps effective vs. 12 Gbps effective), the A400’s newer memory type and higher clocks offer more headroom for future workloads. The A400 also has a higher pixel rate at 28.19 GPixel/s versus 15.94 GPixel/s, but the GTX 770M wins on texture rate at 63.76 GTexel/s versus the A400’s 42.29 GTexel/s, a consequence of its higher TMU count.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute performance?

A: The RTX A400 is significantly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 22,844 versus the GTX 770M’s 8,552, a 167.1% lead. Its FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, compared to 1.530 TFLOPS for the GTX 770M.

Q: Does the GTX 770M support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 770M is based on the Kepler architecture and has no RT cores listed. The RTX A400, based on Ampere, includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI acceleration.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The GTX 770M has 96.19 GB/s with 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: What are their overall performance rankings?

A: Both cards sit at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the GTX 770M averages 6,000.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, while the GTX 770M is rated at 75 W. The A400 also does not require any power connectors, whereas the GTX 770M is an MXM module.

Q: Can the GTX 770M run modern DirectX 12 titles?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a feature level 11_0 implementation. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes more advanced features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

The Verdict

The data points to the RTX A400 as the clear winner for anyone needing current-generation compute features. Its 167.1% lead in OpenCL performance, combined with RT and tensor cores, makes it a far more future-proof option. The GTX 770M, while holding its own in aggregate benchmarks with a 6,000 average score, is an end-of-life product based on a 2013-era architecture. It cannot match the A400’s compute throughput or feature set. The A400’s lower TDP of 50 W versus 75 W also makes it more suitable for compact or power-constrained systems. If you are choosing between these two, the RTX A400 is the only sensible pick for new workloads; the GTX 770M’s only advantage is its wider 192-bit memory bus and higher texture rate, which do not compensate for its other deficiencies.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A400 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Kepler |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1762 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Shading Units | 768 | 960 |

| TMUs | 24 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 24 | None |

| FP32 Compute | 2.706 TFLOPS | 1.530 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support| 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

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

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every modern compute scenario. Its 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 1:1 FP16 ratio make it suitable for AI inference and general GPU compute workloads. The presence of RT and tensor cores opens up hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS-style features, which the GTX 770M cannot handle. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design with four mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a flexible choice for multi-display workstation setups. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory, while on a narrow 64-bit bus, is faster in effective clock speed and offers more capacity than the GTX 770M’s 3 GB.

The GTX 770M, conversely, wins in very narrow legacy scenarios. Its 80 TMUs and 24 ROPs give it a higher texture rate (63.76 GTexel/s) and a wider memory bus (192-bit), which could benefit older games that are fill-rate limited. Its 960 shading units outnumber the A400’s 768, but the A400’s much higher clocks and per-clock efficiency negate that advantage. The GTX 770M’s 3 GB memory is smaller but its 96.19 GB/s bandwidth is essentially tied with the A400. As an MXM module, it is designed for laptops, whereas the A400 is a standard PCIe card. In practice, the GTX 770M’s wins are theoretical and tied to a bygone era of mobile gaming; the RTX A400 is superior for any modern task, from professional rendering to general-purpose compute.