Radeon 760M vs GeForce GTX 680MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX and Radeon 760M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 680MX
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
10.73

760M outperforms GTX 680MX by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking430352
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.1369.27
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameno dataHawx Point
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)6 December 2023 (less than a 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 cores1536512
Core clock speed720 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2599 MHz
Number of transistors3540 Million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate92.2 billion/sec83.17
Floating-point processing powerno data5.323 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160 GB/sno 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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.1
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 680MX 10.73
Radeon 760M 14.90
+38.9%

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.

GTX 680MX 4138
Radeon 760M 5748
+38.9%

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 680MX 6736
Radeon 760M 9603
+42.6%

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 680MX 25501
Radeon 760M 32985
+29.3%

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 HD60
+93.5%
31
−93.5%
1440p12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−76.5%
30
+76.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−56.3%
24−27
+56.3%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−40.9%
30−35
+40.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24
+41.2%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−44%
35−40
+44%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−40%
40−45
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−39.4%
95−100
+39.4%
Hitman 3 20−22
−45%
27−30
+45%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−32.8%
75−80
+32.8%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−48.6%
50−55
+48.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−40%
40−45
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−42.9%
50−55
+42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−21.5%
75−80
+21.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−56.3%
24−27
+56.3%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−40.9%
30−35
+40.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−5.9%
18
+5.9%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−44%
35−40
+44%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−40%
40−45
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−39.4%
95−100
+39.4%
Hitman 3 20−22
−45%
27−30
+45%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−32.8%
75−80
+32.8%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−48.6%
50−55
+48.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−40%
40−45
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−25.7%
44
+25.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−28.6%
35−40
+28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−21.5%
75−80
+21.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−56.3%
24−27
+56.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−40.9%
30−35
+40.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−44%
35−40
+44%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−39.4%
95−100
+39.4%
Hitman 3 20−22
−45%
27−30
+45%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−32.8%
75−80
+32.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−5.7%
37
+5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−64.3%
23
+64.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−21.5%
75−80
+21.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−40%
40−45
+40%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−38.1%
27−30
+38.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−50%
14−16
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−50%
18−20
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−63.3%
80−85
+63.3%
Hitman 3 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−40.9%
30−35
+40.9%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−86.7%
27−30
+86.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−36.8%
90−95
+36.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−38.9%
24−27
+38.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−50%
14−16
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Hitman 3 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−58.3%
75−80
+58.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−42.9%
20−22
+42.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%

This is how GTX 680MX and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 94% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 760M is 58% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 760M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Radeon 760M surpassed GTX 680MX in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.73 14.90
Recency 23 October 2012 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 38.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 713.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680MX in performance tests.


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 680MX
GeForce GTX 680MX
AMD Radeon 760M
Radeon 760M

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.


3.6 24 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 178 votes

Rate Radeon 760M 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.