GeForce 9300M GS vs GTX 680MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX and GeForce 9300M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 680MX
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
9.12
+2433%

680MX outperforms 9300M GS by a whopping 2433% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5321355
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.782.14
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameno dataG98
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (13 years ago)4 June 2008 (18 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores15368
Core clock speed720 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors3540 Million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate92.2 billion/sec4.400
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0224 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data34
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L2 Cacheno data16 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
Interfaceno dataMXM-I
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s11.2 GB/s
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan-N/A
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.

GTX 680MX 9.12
+2433%
9300M GS 0.36

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.

GTX 680MX 3799
+2399%
Samples: 45
9300M GS 152
Samples: 502

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.

GTX 680MX 25501
+9451%
9300M GS 267

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 HD55
+2650%
2−3
−2650%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Palworld 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Fortnite 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Palworld 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+900%
14−16
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Dota 2 65−70
+570%
10−11
−570%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Fortnite 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
Palworld 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+333%
6−7
−333%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Dota 2 65−70
+570%
10−11
−570%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%
Palworld 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+6900%
1−2
−6900%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Valorant 90−95
+3000%
3−4
−3000%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20 0−1
Palworld 12−14 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
Palworld 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 0−1
Valorant 40−45
+720%
5−6
−720%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Palworld 5−6 0−1

This is how GTX 680MX and 9300M GS compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 2650% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680MX is 6900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 680MX surpassed 9300M GS in all 31 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.12 0.36
Recency 23 October 2012 4 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 13 Watt

GTX 680MX has a 2433% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.

9300M GS, on the other hand, has 838% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300M GS 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.

Community ratings

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


3.7 28 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 175 votes

Rate GeForce 9300M GS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 680MX or GeForce 9300M GS, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.