Radeon 680M vs Quadro K1000M

Place in the ranking	890	347
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.49	no data
Power efficiency	3.08	21.02
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK107	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$119.90	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 cores	192	768
Core clock speed	850 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.3264 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	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	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

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	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
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.

K1000M 2.02

Radeon 680M 15.33
+659%

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.

K1000M 777

Radeon 680M 5909
+660%

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.

K1000M 1102

Radeon 680M 10371
+841%

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.

K1000M 5165

Radeon 680M 34600
+570%

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	9 −622%	65−70 +622%
Full HD	16 −131%	37 +131%
1440p	2−3 −750%	17 +750%
4K	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.49	no data
1440p	59.95	no data
4K	119.90	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−875%

39
+875%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −5600%	55−60 +5600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −625%	29 +625%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −357%	32 +357%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −378%	85−90 +378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1075%	45−50 +1075%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −470%	55−60 +470%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −143%	85−90 +143%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −5600%	55−60 +5600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −425%	21 +425%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −329%	30 +329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −378%	85−90 +378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1075%	45−50 +1075%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −370%	47 +370%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −233%	40−45 +233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −143%	85−90 +143%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −325%	17 +325%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −139%	43 +139%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −300%	40 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −100%	24 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +94.4%	18 −94.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1075%

45−50
+1075%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1000%	30−35 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1800%	18−20 +1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −900%	20−22 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −855%	100−110 +855%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−480%

27−30
+480%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1200%

12−14
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	9−10
Far Cry 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	7−8

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−400%

14−16
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%

This is how K1000M and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 622% faster in 900p
Radeon 680M is 131% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 750% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 1000% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K1000M is 94% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 5600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K1000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 52 tests (74%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	15.33
Recency	1 June 2012	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	50 Watt

K1000M has 11.1% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 658.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 680M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.