GeForce GTX 680M vs GTX 295
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with GeForce GTX 680M, including specs and performance data.
680M outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 828 | 576 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | 1.51 |
| Power efficiency | 0.78 | 6.10 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (17 years ago) | 4 June 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $500 | $310.50 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 680M has 1062% better value for money than GTX 295.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 ×2 | 1344 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 46.08 ×2 | 84.90 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 | 2.038 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 ×2 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 512 KB |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s ×2 | 115.2 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| 900p | 24−27
−179%
| 67
+179%
|
| Full HD | 21−24
−205%
| 64
+205%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 23.81
−391%
| 4.85
+391%
|
- GTX 680M has 391% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 295 and GTX 680M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M is 179% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M is 205% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.93 | 7.89 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 4 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 680M has a 169% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 129% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96% more advanced lithography process, and 189% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
