0 Comments
| | Radeon HD 5970 vs GeForce GTX 780 |
Released November, 2009
ATi Radeon HD 5970
- 725 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
by techPowerUp! (Nov, 2009)You will also need a motherboard with two PCI-Express slots, which supports ATI CrossFire technology.
VS
Released May, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780
- 863 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
by techPowerUp!The MSI GTX 780 Lightning runs a large overclock out of the box: 980 MHz GPU base clock.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 5970 vs 780
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| Radeon HD 5970 N/A GeForce GTX 780 N/A | |
| crysis: warhead (2013), Crysis: Warhead (2012), Batman: Arkham City and 6 more | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| Radeon HD 5970 7.1 GeForce GTX 780 8.9 | |
| Passmark, 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill, 3DMark 11 Graphics and 2 more | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| Radeon HD 5970 6.0 GeForce GTX 780 8.5 | |
| Passmark Direct Compute and CLBenchmark Raytrace | |
Noise and Power | |
How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load | |
| Radeon HD 5970 7.7 GeForce GTX 780 9.0 | |
| TDP, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level, Idle Power Consumption and 1 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Is dual GPU | Yes | vs | No | About half of graphics cards are dual GPU | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better floating-point performance | 4,640 GFLOPS | vs | 3,977 GFLOPS | More than 15% better floating-point performance | |||
| More shading units | 3,200 | vs | 2,304 | 896 more shading units | |||
| More render output processors | 64 | vs | 48 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Wider memory bus | 512 bit | vs | 384 bit | Around 35% wider memory bus | |||
| |||||||
| Much better passmark score | 8,055 | vs | 2,625 | More than 3x better passmark score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 42,870 | vs | 23,470 | Around 85% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 35,080 | vs | 21,630 | More than 60% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Much more energy-efficient idle power consumption | 62W | vs | 138W | 2.2x more energy-efficient idle power consumption | |||
| Higher clock speed | 863 MHz | vs | 725 MHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage texture fill score | 147 | vs | 106.6 | Around 40% better 3DMark vantage texture fill score | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 14,020 | vs | 7,660 | Around 85% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 6,008 MHz | vs | 4,000 MHz | More than 50% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Much more energy-efficient load power consumption | 250W | vs | 439W | Around 45% more energy-efficient load power consumption | |||
| More memory | 3,072 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 50% more memory | |||
| Much quieter load noise level | 48.1 dB | vs | 58.9 dB | Around 20% quieter load noise level | |||
| Much quieter idle noise level | 38 dB | vs | 42.8 dB | More than 10% quieter idle noise level | |||
| Higher texture rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | vs | 116 GTexel/s | Around 45% higher texture rate | |||
| Much better CLBenchmark raytrace score | 252,908 | vs | 66,613 | More than 3.8x better CLBenchmark raytrace score | |||
| Much better passmark direct compute score | 3,991 | vs | 1,192 | More than 3.2x better passmark direct compute score | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,502 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | More than 50% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher battlefield 3 framerate | 141 fps | vs | 80.6 fps | Around 75% higher battlefield 3 framerate | |||
| Slightly higher memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | vs | 256 GB/s | Around 15% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher crysis: warhead framerate | 71.4 fps | vs | 53.3 fps | Around 35% higher crysis: warhead framerate | |||
| More texture mapping units | 192 | vs | 160 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 294W | Around 15% lower TDP | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon HD 5970 vs GeForce GTX 780
Passmark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performance
Radeon HD 5970
2,625
GeForce GTX 780
8,055
3DMark Vantage (Texture Fill) Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX performance
Radeon HD 5970
106.6
GeForce GTX 780
147
3DMark 11 Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 11 GPU performance
Radeon HD 5970
7,660
GeForce GTX 780
14,020
3DMark Vantage Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 10 GPU performance
Radeon HD 5970
23,470
GeForce GTX 780
42,870
Passmark Direct Compute Measures performance of general-purpose computing using Microsoft DirectCompute
Radeon HD 5970
1,192
GeForce GTX 780
3,991
CLBenchmark Raytrace Measures compute performance using OpenCL to do raytracing
Radeon HD 5970
66,613
GeForce GTX 780
252,908
Reviews Word on the street
| Radeon HD 5970 | vs | GeForce GTX 780 | ||
| 9.3 | 9.3 | Radeon HD 5970 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|





