GeForce GTX 950M vs GTX 680MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX and GeForce GTX 950M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680MX outperforms 950M by a considerable 47% 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 | 533 | 640 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.78 | 6.38 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | no data | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 13 March 2015 (11 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 cores | 1536 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 44.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 32 or 80 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| GameStream | - | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | - | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
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 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 55
+83.3%
| 30
−83.3%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
+42.9%
| 21
−42.9%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+40%
| 15
−40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+32.3%
|
31
−32.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
23
−30.4%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65
+18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+42.9%
|
27−30
−42.9%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+26.9%
|
26
−26.9%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+27.1%
|
70−75
−27.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+57.7%
|
26
−57.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+35.9%
|
100−110
−35.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−9%
|
73
+9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21
−42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+129%
|
24
−129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+42.9%
|
27−30
−42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+70%
|
20
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+260%
|
5
−260%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+36.8%
|
19
−36.8%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+27.1%
|
70−75
−27.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+105%
|
20
−105%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+57.9%
|
19
−57.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+42.9%
|
27−30
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+27.1%
|
70−75
−27.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+150%
|
22
−150%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+45.8%
|
45−50
−45.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+23.1%
|
35−40
−23.1%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+45.3%
|
60−65
−45.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12
−58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how GTX 680MX and GTX 950M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680MX is 83% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680MX is 43% faster in 1440p
- GTX 680MX is 40% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680MX is 400% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 950M is 18% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 680MX performs better in 60 tests (95%)
- GTX 950M performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.12 | 6.19 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 13 March 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 680MX has a 47% higher aggregate performance score.
GTX 950M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 63% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 950M 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.
