Radeon 680M vs R5 M330

Place in the ranking	967	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.92	22.12
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Exo	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 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 cores	320	768
Compute units	5	no data
Core clock speed	955 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1030 MHz	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	690 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.60	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.6592 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	20	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x8
Width	no data	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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.

HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.0	6.7
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
Mantle	+	-

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.

R5 M330 1.54

Radeon 680M 15.98
+938%

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.

R5 M330 595

Radeon 680M 6166
+936%

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.

R5 M330 1689

Radeon 680M 10371
+514%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R5 M330 922

Radeon 680M 6865
+645%

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.

R5 M330 4897

Radeon 680M 43225
+783%

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	9 −311%	37 +311%
1440p	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
4K	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−875%

39
+875%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −550%	35−40 +550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −625%	29 +625%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1075%	45−50 +1075%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2650%	110−120 +2650%
Hitman 3	6−7 −433%	32 +433%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −473%	85−90 +473%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1467%	45−50 +1467%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −613%	55−60 +613%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −550%	35−40 +550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −425%	21 +425%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1075%	45−50 +1075%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2650%	110−120 +2650%
Hitman 3	6−7 −400%	30 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −473%	85−90 +473%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1467%	45−50 +1467%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −488%	47 +488%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 −208%	40−45 +208%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −550%	35−40 +550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −325%	17 +325%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2650%	110−120 +2650%
Hitman 3	6−7 −350%	27 +350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −187%	43 +187%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −400%	40 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −118%	24 +118%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +88.9%	18 −88.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1467%

45−50
+1467%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1550%	30−35 +1550%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	18−20
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	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −1213%	100−110 +1213%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−625%

27−30
+625%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1200%

12−14
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	9−10
Far Cry 5	0−1	9−10

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%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +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%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

This is how R5 M330 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 311% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 1600% 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 R5 M330 is 89% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 2650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R5 M330 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 48 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	15.98
Recency	5 May 2015	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	50 Watt

R5 M330 has 177.8% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 937.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M330 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M330 is a notebook card while Radeon 680M is a desktop one.

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