Radeon 680M vs GeForce GT 730M

Place in the ranking	868	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.46	22.28
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK107	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 January 2013 (11 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 cores	384	768
Core clock speed	725 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.20	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.5568 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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 size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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 type	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Standard memory configuration	DDR3/GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	No outputs	Portable Device Dependent
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
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 730M 2.11

Radeon 680M 15.98
+657%

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 730M 814

Radeon 680M 6166
+657%

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 730M 1722

Radeon 680M 10371
+502%

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 730M 6788

Radeon 680M 34600
+410%

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 730M 1061

Radeon 680M 6865
+547%

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 730M 7152

Radeon 680M 43225
+504%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 730M 86656

Radeon 680M 359776
+315%

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:

Full HD	22 −68.2%	37 +68.2%
1440p	2−3 −750%	17 +750%
4K	1−2 −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	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −2750%	55−60 +2750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −480%	29 +480%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1122%	110−120 +1122%
Hitman 3	7−8 −357%	32 +357%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −378%	85−90 +378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −470%	55−60 +470%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −136%	85−90 +136%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −2750%	55−60 +2750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1122%	110−120 +1122%
Hitman 3	7−8 −329%	30 +329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −378%	85−90 +378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −370%	47 +370%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −233%	40−45 +233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −136%	85−90 +136%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −240%	17 +240%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1122%	110−120 +1122%
Hitman 3	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −139%	43 +139%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −300%	40 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −100%	24 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +100%	18 −100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−840%

45−50
+840%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1000%	30−35 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%

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	2−3 −900%	20−22 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 −775%	100−110 +775%

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%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+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 730M and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 68% 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 730M is 100% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 2750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 730M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 53 tests (76%)
there's a draw in 16 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.11	15.98
Recency	20 January 2013	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt

GT 730M has 51.5% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 657.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 730M in performance tests.

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