Radeon 680M vs RTX A4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A4000 Mobile with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4000 Mobile outperforms 680M by a whopping 354% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 118 | 506 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 23.59 | 11.96 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GA104 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 April 2021 (3 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 | 5120 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1680 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,400 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 268.8 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 17.2 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 80 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 160 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 160−170
+332%
| 37
−332%
|
| 1440p | 80−85
+344%
| 18
−344%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+350%
| 10
−350%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+193%
|
28
−193%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+115%
|
39
−115%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+271%
|
27−30
−271%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+257%
|
23
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+500%
|
14
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+243%
|
56
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+166%
|
38
−166%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+141%
|
39
−141%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+221%
|
24−27
−221%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−2.5%
|
161
+2.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+271%
|
27−30
−271%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+290%
|
21
−290%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+664%
|
11
−664%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+156%
|
48
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+172%
|
36
−172%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+237%
|
50−55
−237%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+309%
|
47
−309%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+381%
|
21−24
−381%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+239%
|
36
−239%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+248%
|
27
−248%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+196%
|
65−70
−196%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+221%
|
24−27
−221%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+438%
|
24−27
−438%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+423%
|
30
−423%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+116%
|
120−130
−116%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+271%
|
27−30
−271%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+447%
|
14−16
−447%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+833%
|
9
−833%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+102%
|
61
−102%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+172%
|
35−40
−172%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+380%
|
40
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+288%
|
26
−288%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+196%
|
65−70
−196%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+7.5%
|
146
−7.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+329%
|
17
−329%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+329%
|
17
−329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
+303%
|
60−65
−303%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+700%
|
5
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+606%
|
18−20
−606%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+322%
|
27
−322%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+467%
|
14−16
−467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+306%
|
17
−306%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+464%
|
21−24
−464%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+412%
|
24−27
−412%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+305%
|
18−20
−305%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+750%
|
2
−750%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+333%
|
18
−333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11
−480%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+364%
|
14
−364%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
This is how RTX A4000 Mobile and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- RTX A4000 Mobile is 332% faster in 1080p
- RTX A4000 Mobile is 344% faster in 1440p
- RTX A4000 Mobile is 350% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A4000 Mobile is 2400% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 3% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A4000 Mobile is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
- Radeon 680M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.79 | 8.33 |
| Recency | 12 April 2021 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX A4000 Mobile has a 353.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.
The RTX A4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX A4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 680M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
