GeForce GTX 680MX vs Radeon R9 M295X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M295X and GeForce GTX 680MX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M295X
2014
0 MB Not Listed, 250 Watt
13.35
+24.5%

R9 M295X outperforms GTX 680MX by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking382430
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.696.07
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystno data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 November 2014 (9 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 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 cores20481536
Core clock speed723 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3540 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5492.2 billion/sec
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
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 typeNot ListedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount0 MB2 GB
Memory bus widthNot Listed256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s160 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
3D Vision-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXNot Listed12 API
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Mantle+-
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.

R9 M295X 13.35
+24.5%
GTX 680MX 10.72

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.

R9 M295X 5150
+24.5%
GTX 680MX 4138

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.

R9 M295X 8851
+31.4%
GTX 680MX 6736

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.

R9 M295X 29972
+17.5%
GTX 680MX 25501

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 HD46
−19.6%
55
+19.6%
4K27
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+26.5%
30−35
−26.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+23.9%
70−75
−23.9%
Hitman 3 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+19%
55−60
−19%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+12.3%
65−70
−12.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+26.5%
30−35
−26.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+23.9%
70−75
−23.9%
Hitman 3 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+19%
55−60
−19%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68
+143%
27−30
−143%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+12.3%
65−70
−12.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+23.9%
70−75
−23.9%
Hitman 3 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+19%
55−60
−19%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+21.4%
14
−21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+12.3%
65−70
−12.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+36.7%
45−50
−36.7%
Hitman 3 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+22.1%
65−70
−22.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+35.4%
45−50
−35.4%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+75%
8−9
−75%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%

This is how R9 M295X and GTX 680MX compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 20% faster in 1080p
  • R9 M295X is 29% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M295X is 143% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 M295X surpassed GTX 680MX in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.35 10.72
Recency 23 November 2014 23 October 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 122 Watt

R9 M295X has a 24.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

GTX 680MX, on the other hand, has 104.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680MX in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Radeon R9 M295X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
GeForce GTX 680MX

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 17 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 24 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.