Radeon 680M vs HD 6930
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6930 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.
680M outperforms HD 6930 by a considerable 43% 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 | 621 | 511 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 81 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.89 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.80 | 14.94 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Cayman | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 December 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $180 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1280 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,640 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 186 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 60.00 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.92 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 220 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 24−27 | 37
+54.2%
|
| 1440p | 10−12 | 17
+70%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−40%
| 10 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.50 | no data |
| 1440p | 18.00 | no data |
| 4K | 30.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 38 | 38 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 34 | 34 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 32 | 32 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28 | 28 |
| Far Cry 5 | 38 | 38 |
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 22 | 22 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Valorant | 90−95 | 90−95 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 | 21 |
| Dota 2 | 71 | 71 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 35 |
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36 | 36 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20 | 20 |
| Metro Exodus | 23 | 23 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40 | 40 |
| Valorant | 90−95 | 90−95 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 18 |
| Dota 2 | 61 | 61 |
| Far Cry 5 | 33 | 33 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14 | 14 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24 | 24 |
| Valorant | 146 | 146 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17 | 17 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Valorant | 95−100 | 95−100 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21 | 21 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17 | 17 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 20−22 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 13 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 40−45 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4 | 4 |
| Dota 2 | 18 | 18 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 9−10 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 9−10 |
This is how HD 6930 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is 54% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 680M is 70% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 680M is 67% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.69 | 9.60 |
| Recency | 1 December 2011 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 186 Watt | 50 Watt |
Radeon 680M has a 43% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 85% more advanced lithography process, and 73% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6930 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6930 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 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.
