Radeon 680M vs UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs by a whopping 101% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 687 | 506 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.96 |
| Architecture | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 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 | 32 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 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.
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.
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 | 16
−131%
| 37
+131%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−125%
| 18
+125%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−150%
| 10
+150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−55.6%
|
27−30
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−229%
|
56
+229%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1364%
|
161
+1364%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−75%
|
27−30
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 34
−41.2%
|
48
+41.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−177%
|
36
+177%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−104%
|
50−55
+104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−176%
|
47
+176%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−177%
|
36
+177%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−350%
|
27
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−83.8%
|
65−70
+83.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−85.7%
|
24−27
+85.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−173%
|
30
+173%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
−79.2%
|
120−130
+79.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−86.7%
|
27−30
+86.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
−96.8%
|
61
+96.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−200%
|
35−40
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−135%
|
40
+135%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−83.8%
|
65−70
+83.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−350%
|
27
+350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is 131% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 680M is 125% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 680M is 150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 1364% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is ahead in 35 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.18 | 8.40 |
| Recency | 30 March 2021 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
Radeon 680M has a 101% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs 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.
