RTX A2000 vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680M SLI
2012
2x 4 GB GDDR5
16.62

RTX A2000 outperforms GTX 680M SLI by a whopping 114% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking322136
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data88.18
Power efficiencyno data36.65
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameN13E-GTXGA106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date4 June 2012 (12 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores26883328
Core clock speed720 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistorsno data12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data70 Watt
Texture fill rateno data124.8
Floating-point processing powerno data7.987 TFLOPS
ROPsno data48
TMUsno data104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data167 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2x 4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed3600 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 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 Connectorsno data4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

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.

DirectX1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA+8.6

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 680M SLI 16.62
RTX A2000 35.63
+114%

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 680M SLI 32635
RTX A2000 76281
+134%

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 680M SLI 10952
RTX A2000 19978
+82.4%

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:

900p133
−111%
280−290
+111%
Full HD92
−3.3%
95
+3.3%
1440p21−24
−119%
46
+119%
4K12−14
−142%
29
+142%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−103%
75−80
+103%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
−104%
55−60
+104%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−112%
70−75
+112%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−105%
80−85
+105%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−111%
95−100
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−110%
220−230
+110%
Hitman 3 30−35
−103%
65−70
+103%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−114%
120−130
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−111%
95−100
+111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−103%
75−80
+103%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
−104%
55−60
+104%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−112%
70−75
+112%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−105%
80−85
+105%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−111%
95−100
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−110%
220−230
+110%
Hitman 3 30−35
−103%
65−70
+103%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−114%
120−130
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−111%
95−100
+111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−111%
80−85
+111%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−103%
75−80
+103%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
−104%
55−60
+104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−112%
70−75
+112%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−105%
80−85
+105%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−110%
220−230
+110%
Hitman 3 30−35
−103%
65−70
+103%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−111%
80−85
+111%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−107%
170−180
+107%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−111%
95−100
+111%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−103%
65−70
+103%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−100%
50−55
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−111%
40−45
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−105%
180−190
+105%
Hitman 3 20−22
−100%
40−45
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−112%
70−75
+112%
Metro Exodus 30−33
−100%
60−65
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−110%
65−70
+110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−105
−110%
210−220
+110%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−104%
55−60
+104%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Hitman 3 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−114%
180−190
+114%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−105%
45−50
+105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−100%
30−33
+100%

This is how GTX 680M SLI and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 is 111% faster in 900p
  • RTX A2000 is 3% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 is 119% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 is 142% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.62 35.63
Recency 4 June 2012 10 August 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm

RTX A2000 has a 114.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook card while RTX A2000 is a workstation 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 680M SLI
GeForce GTX 680M SLI
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


4.7 3 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 552 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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.