Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 675M SLI

Place in the ranking	498	368
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.99	19.55
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	N12E-GTX2	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	6 January 2011 (14 years ago)	3 January 2023 (2 years 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	768	768
Core clock speed	620 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	2x 100 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	105.6
Floating-point processing power	no data	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	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	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	3000 MHz	System Shared
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 data

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.7
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.0
Vulkan	-	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.

GTX 675M SLI 8.68

Radeon 680M 14.17
+63.2%

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.

GTX 675M SLI 6407

Radeon 680M 10371
+61.9%

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.

GTX 675M SLI 18405

Radeon 680M 34600
+88%

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	21−24 −76.2%	37 +76.2%
1440p	10−12 −80%	18 +80%
4K	6−7 −66.7%	10 +66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −64.7%	28 +64.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −129%	39 +129%
Elden Ring	24−27 −41.7%	34 +41.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −64.3%	45−50 +64.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −35.3%	23 +35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +21.4%	14 −21.4%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −60%	56 +60%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −69.6%	39 +69.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −45.8%	35−40 +45.8%
Valorant	30−35 −419%	161 +419%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −64.3%	45−50 +64.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −23.5%	21 +23.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +54.5%	11 −54.5%
Dota 2	30−35 −54.8%	48 +54.8%
Elden Ring	24−27 −175%	66 +175%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +2.8%	36 −2.8%
Fortnite	50−55 −56.9%	80−85 +56.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −34.3%	47 +34.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −16.1%	36 +16.1%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −17.4%	27 +17.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −51.5%	100−110 +51.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −45.8%	35−40 +45.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −65.4%	40−45 +65.4%
Valorant	30−35 +3.3%	30 −3.3%
World of Tanks	120−130 −44.2%	180−190 +44.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −64.3%	45−50 +64.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −47.1%	24−27 +47.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +88.9%	9 −88.9%
Dota 2	30−35 −96.8%	61 +96.8%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −43.2%	50−55 +43.2%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −14.3%	40 +14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −51.5%	100−110 +51.5%
Valorant	30−35 −371%	146 +371%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
Elden Ring	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −54.5%	17 +54.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −183%	110−120 +183%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −71.4%	12−14 +71.4%
World of Tanks	60−65 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −75%	27−30 +75%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −30%	12−14 +30%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5 −20%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −88.9%	30−35 +88.9%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −50%	27 +50%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −107%	30−35 +107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
Valorant	21−24 −59.1%	35−40 +59.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −31.6%	24−27 +31.6%
Elden Ring	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −31.6%	24−27 +31.6%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −31.6%	24−27 +31.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +5.6%	18 −5.6%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Fortnite	9−10 −77.8%	16−18 +77.8%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −40%	14 +40%
Valorant	8−9 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%

This is how GTX 675M SLI and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 76% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 80% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 67% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 675M SLI is 89% faster.
in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 419% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 675M SLI is ahead in 7 tests (11%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 55 tests (87%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.68	14.17
Recency	6 January 2011	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	2 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 675M SLI has 2400% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 63.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 675M SLI in performance tests.

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