Radeon R9 M485X vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI and Radeon R9 M485X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 680M SLI outperforms R9 M485X by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 331 | 467 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.62 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (8 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 | 2688 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
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 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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:
| 900p | 133
+77.3%
| 75−80
−77.3%
|
| Full HD | 96
+74.5%
| 55−60
−74.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+71%
|
30−35
−71%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+78.9%
|
35−40
−78.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+60%
|
24−27
−60%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+88.6%
|
35−40
−88.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+71%
|
30−35
−71%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+73.5%
|
30−35
−73.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+51.3%
|
35−40
−51.3%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+62.5%
|
55−60
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+78.9%
|
35−40
−78.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+73.5%
|
30−35
−73.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+56.8%
|
70−75
−56.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+60%
|
24−27
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+75.9%
|
27−30
−75.9%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+88.6%
|
35−40
−88.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 229
+64.7%
|
130−140
−64.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+71%
|
30−35
−71%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+73.5%
|
30−35
−73.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+51.3%
|
35−40
−51.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+78.9%
|
35−40
−78.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+56.8%
|
70−75
−56.8%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+88.6%
|
35−40
−88.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+233%
|
45−50
−233%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+69.1%
|
65−70
−69.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+110%
|
20−22
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+105%
|
20−22
−105%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+40%
|
20−22
−40%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+40%
|
20−22
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+75%
|
27−30
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+40%
|
20−22
−40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+40%
|
20−22
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and R9 M485X compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 77% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 233% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M SLI surpassed R9 M485X in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.53 | 9.52 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 15 May 2016 |
GTX 680M SLI has a 73.6% higher aggregate performance score.
R9 M485X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M485X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
