Radeon 680M vs HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M outperforms HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) by a whopping 2445% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1308 | 506 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.96 |
| Architecture | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 May 2011 (13 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 | 6 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 8
−363%
| 37
+363%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 18 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 10 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−367%
|
28
+367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1200%
|
39
+1200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−283%
|
23
+283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1767%
|
56
+1767%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−250%
|
21
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−414%
|
36
+414%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1467%
|
47
+1467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−420%
|
24−27
+420%
|
| World of Tanks | 10
−1190%
|
120−130
+1190%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−414%
|
35−40
+414%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−340%
|
21−24
+340%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18
+20%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Valorant | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is 363% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 680M is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 8.40 |
| Recency | 1 May 2011 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 6 nm |
Radeon 680M has a 2445.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 433.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
