Radeon 680M vs GeForce GT 645M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 645M and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 645M
2012
2 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 32 Watt
2.42

680M outperforms GT 645M by a whopping 560% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking838336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.2722.28
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGK107Rembrandt+
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 October 2012 (12 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384768
Core clock speedUp to 710 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate22.69105.6
Floating-point processing power0.5445 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3248
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3\GDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128bitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidthUp to 64.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 API12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 645M 2.42
Radeon 680M 15.98
+560%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 645M 934
Radeon 680M 6166
+560%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 645M 1845
Radeon 680M 10371
+462%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 645M 7357
Radeon 680M 34600
+370%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 645M 1152
Radeon 680M 6865
+496%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 645M 8655
Radeon 680M 43225
+399%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p30
−533%
190−200
+533%
Full HD23
−60.9%
37
+60.9%
1440p2−3
−750%
17
+750%
4K1−2
−1000%
11
+1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−680%
39
+680%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−388%
35−40
+388%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1800%
55−60
+1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−480%
29
+480%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−925%
40−45
+925%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−683%
45−50
+683%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−357%
32
+357%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−330%
85−90
+330%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−418%
55−60
+418%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−388%
35−40
+388%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1800%
55−60
+1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21
+320%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−925%
40−45
+925%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−683%
45−50
+683%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−330%
85−90
+330%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−327%
47
+327%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−388%
35−40
+388%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−925%
40−45
+925%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−115%
43
+115%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−264%
40
+264%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−84.6%
24
+84.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+106%
18
−106%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−725%
30−35
+725%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1000%
11
+1000%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Hitman 3 7−8
−186%
20−22
+186%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−750%
17
+750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−650%
100−110
+650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−480%
27−30
+480%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 16−18
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 7−8

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
+0%
38
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
+0%
27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+0%
14
+0%

This is how GT 645M and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 533% faster in 900p
  • Radeon 680M is 61% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 750% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 1000% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 645M is 106% faster.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 5900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 645M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Radeon 680M is ahead in 55 tests (79%)
  • there's a draw in 14 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.42 15.98
Recency 1 October 2012 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 50 Watt

GT 645M has 56.3% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 560.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 645M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
GeForce GT 645M
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 96 votes

Rate GeForce GT 645M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 936 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.