GeForce GTX 680MX vs Radeon 840M

Place in the ranking	538	532
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	45.85	5.78
Architecture	RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Krackan Point	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	March 2025 (1 year ago)	23 October 2012 (13 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	256	1536
Core clock speed	400 MHz	720 MHz
Boost clock speed	2900 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	3540 Million
Manufacturing process technology	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	122 Watt
Texture fill rate	46.40	92.2 billion/sec
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	16	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	4	no data
L0 Cache	64 KB	no data
L1 Cache	64 KB	no data
L2 Cache	1024 KB	no 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 size	medium sized	large
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	160 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

Portable Device Dependent

no data

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.

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 API
Shader Model	6.8	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.4	-
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.

Radeon 840M 8.89

GTX 680MX 9.12
+2.6%

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.

Radeon 840M 3703
Samples: 814

GTX 680MX 3799
+2.6%

Samples: 45

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.

Radeon 840M 7367
+9.4%

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.

Radeon 840M 24592

GTX 680MX 25501
+3.7%

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.

Radeon 840M 12

GTX 680MX 36
+200%

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

−150%

55
+150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2	84 +71.4%	45−50 −71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%
Counter-Strike 2	68 +38.8%	45−50 −38.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%
Valorant	85−90 −1.1%	85−90 +1.1%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%
Counter-Strike 2	15 −227%	45−50 +227%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	130−140 −1.4%	140−150 +1.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	32 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 −13%	26 +13%
Valorant	85−90 −1.1%	85−90 +1.1%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +7.1%	14 −7.1%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	65−70 −2.9%	70−75 +2.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	90−95 −2.2%	90−95 +2.2%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5	21−24 −4.8%	21−24 +4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −4.8%	21−24 +4.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Palworld	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Palworld	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Palworld	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
High

Dota 2

65−70

+0%

65−70

+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

1440p
High

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

4K
Ultra

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

This is how Radeon 840M and GTX 680MX compete in popular games:

GTX 680MX is 150% faster in 1080p

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 840M is 71% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680MX is 227% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 840M performs better in 3 tests (5%)
GTX 680MX performs better in 37 tests (57%)
there's a draw in 25 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.89	9.12
Chip lithography	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	122 Watt

Radeon 840M has a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 713% lower power consumption.

GTX 680MX, on the other hand, has a 3% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon 840M and GeForce GTX 680MX.

Other comparisons

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

Radeon 840M

Radeon R9 M390

GeForce GTX 680MX

Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell

HD Graphics P4000

GTX 1080 SLI Mobile

1060 6 GB Rev. 2

GTX 680M

E9172 MXM

Community ratings

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

3.8 30 votes

Rate Radeon 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

3.7 28 votes

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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon 840M or GeForce GTX 680MX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.