GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs GTX 680

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680
2012
2048 MB GDDR5, 195 Watt
14.50
+116%

GTX 680 outperforms GTX 780M Mac Edition by a whopping 116% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking361564
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.01no data
Power efficiency5.123.79
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK104
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)8 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores15361536
Core clock speed1006 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate135.4102.0
Floating-point processing power3.25 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs128128

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length254 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2048 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR5256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s160.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA+3.0

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:

900p45
+150%
18−21
−150%
Full HD75
+150%
30−35
−150%
4K26
+117%
12−14
−117%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.65no data
4K19.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Elden Ring 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+122%
18−20
−122%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%
Valorant 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Dota 2 37
+131%
16−18
−131%
Elden Ring 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+125%
24−27
−125%
Fortnite 80−85
+131%
35−40
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+133%
24−27
−133%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+122%
18−20
−122%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+133%
45−50
−133%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+124%
21−24
−124%
Valorant 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
World of Tanks 224
+124%
100−105
−124%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Dota 2 50−55
+117%
24−27
−117%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+125%
24−27
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+133%
45−50
−133%
Valorant 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Elden Ring 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+127%
55−60
−127%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
World of Tanks 100−110
+127%
45−50
−127%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Valorant 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Dota 2 21
+133%
9−10
−133%
Elden Ring 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Grand Theft Auto V 21
+133%
9−10
−133%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+139%
18−20
−139%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+133%
9−10
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Fortnite 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Valorant 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%

This is how GTX 680 and GTX 780M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is 150% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680 is 150% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 680 is 117% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.50 6.72
Recency 22 March 2012 8 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2048 MB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 195 Watt 122 Watt

GTX 680 has a 115.8% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 780M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 59.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition is a notebook one.


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 GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 592 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition 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.