Winner
EVGA GeForce GTX 780
GPUBoss recommends the EVGA GeForce GTX 780 based on its noise and power.
See full details| | Radeon R9 290 vs EVGA GeForce GTX 780 |
by techPowerUp!NVIDIA's GTX 780, which has seen a price drop down to $500 last week suddenly looks really expensive, but it does run cooler and quieter; not sure if that's worth the extra $100.
by techPowerUp!Idle power consumption of the GTX 780 Lightning is pretty much the same as the reference design, which is good.
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| Radeon R9 290 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 R9 290 8.6 GeForce GTX 780 9.0 | |
| Passmark, 3DMark 11 Graphics, 3DMark Vantage Graphics and 3DMark06 | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| Radeon R9 290 8.3 GeForce GTX 780 8.7 | |
| Civilization 5 Texture Decomposition (2013) and Passmark Direct Compute | |
Noise and Power | |
How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load | |
| Radeon R9 290 8.2 GeForce GTX 780 9.0 | |
| TDP, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level, Idle Power Consumption and 1 more | |
GPUBoss Score | |
Gaming, Benchmarks, Compute Performance and Noise and Power | |
| Radeon R9 290 8.4 GeForce GTX 780 8.8 | |
Winner |
| | | EVGA GeForce GTX 780GPUBoss Winner |
| |||||||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 3,072 MB | Around 35% more memory | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher pixel rate | 60.6 GPixel/s | vs | 46.4 GPixel/s | More than 30% higher pixel rate | |||
| Slightly higher memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | vs | 288.4 GB/s | More than 10% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| 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 | |||
| |||||||
| Better passmark score | 8,060 | vs | 6,496 | Around 25% better passmark score | |||
| Significantly more energy-efficient load power consumption | 250W | vs | 381W | Around 35% more energy-efficient load power consumption | |||
| Much quieter load noise level | 48.1 dB | vs | 57.2 dB | More than 15% quieter load noise level | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 6,008 MHz | vs | 5,000 MHz | More than 20% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly more energy-efficient idle power consumption | 62W | vs | 87W | Around 30% more energy-efficient idle power consumption | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 42,870 | vs | 38,650 | More than 10% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark06 score | 35,080 | vs | 32,300 | Around 10% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,502 MHz | vs | 1,125 MHz | Around 35% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,020 MHz | vs | 947 MHz | Around 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Quieter idle noise level | 38 dB | vs | 39.5 dB | Around 5% quieter idle noise level | |||
| Better passmark direct compute score | 3,993 | vs | 2,751 | More than 45% better passmark direct compute score | |||
| More texture mapping units | 192 | vs | 160 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
| Radeon R9 290 | vs | GeForce GTX 780 | ||
| 9.4 | 9.3 | Radeon R9 290 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|