OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon 780M review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£330VRAM:?Memory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon 780M Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 18 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

40%

5.4

Technical score

25%

5.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

5.4

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 90% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

▼Worse than 82%
5.4

Technical score

Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

▼Worse than 79%
5.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models

5.4

Mark 7.9 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
7 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 11 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 86%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £330
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon 780M

Based on 7 · 15

Opinions split on gaming, decent for integrated graphics to some and too weak to others, and it leans heavily on system RAM.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon 780M

Technical score
Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

5.4
Reviews score
5.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,735 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,735 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 93.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
902 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 902 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 81.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
6,900 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,900 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 90.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,084 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,084 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 86.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
8.9 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 8.9 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 76.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
?
Memory type
N/A
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
89.6 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,400 MHz, which is slower than that of 93.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
2.1
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is more advanced than on 66.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
15 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
54 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 54 W, which is lower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
35 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon 780M vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • 75.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (54 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    54 W vs 220 W
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 75.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (54 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    54 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 80% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (89.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 65.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 25.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models

    5.4

    Mark 7.9 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    7 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 11 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.4 vs 7.2
  • 30.8% lower sentiment score
    5.4 vs 7.8
  • 9.7% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon 780M has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.76 vs 7.4).
    6.76 vs 7.41
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 65.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 46.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (86.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    86.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 120 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (24 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    24 vs 144
  • 60.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 69.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,900 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,900 points vs 22,638 points
  • 81.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,735 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,735 points vs 14,779 points
  • 90.1% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (902 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    902 points vs 9,148 points
  • 66.2% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,084 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,084 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 80% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (89.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 66.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 18 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (85 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    85 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Michael Noble
≈ estimated
11/06/2026
Hands-on review · gaming, creative work and thermals
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M mini PC is not perfect but surprisingly capable for gaming, creative work and admin tasks, though it is expensive.
8.0
EVO Tech
≈ estimated
01/03/2026
Gameplay test · frame rates and upscaling settings
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is very playable with upscaling, though the visuals are not the most beautiful.
9.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
17/10/2025
Long-term test · benchmarks, thermals and power draw
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M offers solid performance and low power draw, though thermals need about a week to settle.
9.0
Mr.Laowai-English Tech
≈ estimated
19/09/2025
Hands-on review · gaming, video editing and streaming tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M mini PC is compact, powerful and reliable for office work and 4K editing, though weak Wi-Fi holds it back.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
10/09/2025
Hands-on review · 20 game tests and build quality
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M suits esports and older titles since it struggles with modern AAA games, though the mini PC is well built and quiet.
4.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
30/07/2024
Hands-on test · upscaling and frame generation at 720p and 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is too blurry and laggy for smooth play in this game, so it is not recommended here.
8.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
24/07/2024
Hands-on test · GTA V at multiple resolutions
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is surprisingly capable in GTA V at 1080p high, but 4K and 8K are not practical.
8.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
16/06/2024
Hands-on testing · 16 games and benchmarks on mini PC
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M handles older AAA, esports and indie games well but falls short on demanding new AAA titles.
9.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
21/06/2023
Hands-on review · gaming tests on a mini PC
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is very impressive for integrated graphics, though ray tracing isn't worth enabling.
9.0
Daniel Owen
≈ estimated
15/06/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks against GTX 1060 and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is a strong integrated GPU and a clear pick for mini PC buyers who accept the form-factor limits.
9.0
Hubwood
≈ estimated
18/05/2023
Benchmark test · 50 games at 1080p on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is surprisingly strong for an integrated GPU, close to an RTX 3050 laptop in many games.
7.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
19/04/2023
Hands-on first look · game benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Radeon 780M is among the most powerful integrated GPUs tested, though it is only a modest step up from earlier chips.
More graded video reviews (1)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
ultrabookreview.com
≈ estimated
17/06/2025
Benchmark test · Laptop comparison
Verdict
The Radeon 780M is currently the best integrated graphics chip, about 50% ahead of Intel Iris Xe, but still trails entry-level RTX 3050 Ti cards.
6.0
xtgamer.net
≈ estimated
07/04/2025
Game-by-game test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The Radeon 780M runs older and mid-range games at 30 fps or more, but video memory limits cause stutter in newer games such as Split Fiction and Atomfall.
5.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
11/08/2023
Benchmark test · Driver and RAM check
Verdict
The Radeon 780M disappoints in this early-driver test and needs dual-channel RAM to pull clearly ahead of older integrated graphics.
6.0
notebookcheck.biz
≈ estimated
05/05/2023
Benchmark test · Laptop graphics
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 780M is a small step up from the 680M: faster in Cyberpunk 2077, often level with it, and behind the GeForce MX550 overall.
9.4
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
29/01/2024
Processor review · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 8700G has the strongest integrated graphics of its generation for light games without a graphics card, but it needs fast memory.
5.0
notebookcheck.it
≈ estimated
12/08/2023
Benchmark test · Driver and RAM check
Verdict
The Radeon 780M disappoints in this early-driver test and needs dual-channel RAM to pull clearly ahead of older integrated graphics.
5.0
notebookcheck.nl
≈ estimated
12/08/2023
Benchmark test · Driver and RAM check
Verdict
The Radeon 780M disappoints in this early-driver test and needs dual-channel RAM to pull clearly ahead of older integrated graphics.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon 780M

  • Fastest integrated GPU currently available, significantly outpacing previous generations like the Radeon 680M and Vega 8.
  • Capable of delivering a smooth 1080p gaming experience on popular titles such as CS:GO and GTA V with high settings.
  • Highly power-efficient based on a 4nm process, making it ideal for ultraportable laptops and mini PCs.
  • Excellent for creative workloads including 3D rendering, video editing (AV1 support), and content creation.
  • Supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware-accelerated ray tracing.
  • Outperforms competitors like Intel Iris Xe by approximately 70-80% in total benchmarks.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon 780M

  • Performance is heavily bottlenecked by system memory bandwidth since it lacks dedicated VRAM.
  • Ray tracing performance is often too slow for practical use in demanding modern games despite hardware support.
  • Early driver stability issues have caused crashes in certain titles like Spider-Man and God of War.
  • Can experience high thermal peaks (up to 90°C) under sustained heavy loads in some implementations.
  • Occasional frame rate drops and stuttering in graphically intensive scenes with heavy particle effects.
  • Still significantly less powerful than entry-level discrete GPUs like the RTX 3050 or 4050.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon 780M is a high-performance integrated graphics solution built on the advanced 4nm Phoenix process and RDNA 3 architecture, featuring 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 dedicated ray tracing cores. Primarily found in Ryzen 7040/8040 series mobile processors and 8000 series desktop APUs, it operates at a base clock of 800 MHz with boost frequencies reaching up to 2.7 GHz–3.0 GHz depending on the CPU model. Its main strengths include industry-leading iGPU performance capable of 1080p gaming in modern titles, hardware-level DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and excellent power efficiency with a configurable TDP typically ranging from 15W to 54W. However, its performance is heavily reliant on fast system RAM (ideally DDR5/LPDDR5x) and limited by the narrow 128-bit memory bus shared with the CPU; while it includes ray tracing hardware, actual performance in ray-traced games remains too slow for practical use at high settings.

Compare AMD Radeon 780M with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon 780M and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found