GeForce GTX 680M vs Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire and GeForce GTX 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6990M Crossfire outperforms GTX 680M by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 465 | 509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.79 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.83 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb XTX | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $310.50 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2240 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x1700 Million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 84.90 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.038 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| 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 | 2x2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 115.2 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 99
+47.8%
| 67
−47.8%
|
| Full HD | 106
+65.6%
| 64
−65.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.85 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+15.2%
|
30−35
−15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
35−40
−11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+14%
|
50−55
−14%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+15.2%
|
30−35
−15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+13.4%
|
65−70
−13.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+10.2%
|
128
−10.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
35−40
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+15.2%
|
30−35
−15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+13.4%
|
65−70
−13.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+9.8%
|
40−45
−9.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+14.8%
|
60−65
−14.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
This is how HD 6990M Crossfire and GTX 680M compete in popular games:
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 48% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 66% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6990M Crossfire is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6990M Crossfire is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.45 | 8.19 |
| Recency | 12 July 2011 | 4 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 6990M Crossfire has a 15.4% higher aggregate performance score.
GTX 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M 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.
