GeForce GTX 680MX vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	358	429
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	40.38	6.09
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	DG2-128	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	768	1536
Core clock speed	300 MHz	720 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	3540 Million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	122 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	92.2 billion/sec
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	24	no data
TMUs	48	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	6	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	no data	large
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	160 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 API
Shader Model	6.6	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	-
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Arc A350M 14.63
+36%

GTX 680MX 10.76

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.

Arc A350M 10730
+59.3%

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.

Arc A350M 31023
+21.7%

GTX 680MX 25501

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	35 −60%	56 +60%
1440p	16 +60%	10−12 −60%
4K	8 +60%	5−6 −60%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +30%	20−22 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +28.6%	21−24 −28.6%
Elden Ring	22 −40.9%	30−35 +40.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +30%	20−22 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 −133%	21−24 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +53.5%	40−45 −53.5%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +37.9%	27−30 −37.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +28.6%	27−30 −28.6%
Valorant	56 +36.6%	40−45 −36.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +30%	20−22 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 −163%	21−24 +163%
Dota 2	38 −2.6%	35−40 +2.6%
Elden Ring	42 +35.5%	30−35 −35.5%
Far Cry 5	27 −59.3%	40−45 +59.3%
Fortnite	80−85 +32.3%	60−65 −32.3%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +23.3%	40−45 −23.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 −46.2%	35−40 +46.2%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +37.9%	27−30 −37.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +29.3%	80−85 −29.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +28.6%	27−30 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +36.4%	30−35 −36.4%
Valorant	55−60 +41.5%	40−45 −41.5%
World of Tanks	190−200 +25.7%	150−160 −25.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +30%	20−22 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 −250%	21−24 +250%
Dota 2	59 +51.3%	35−40 −51.3%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +25.6%	40−45 −25.6%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +4.7%	40−45 −4.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +29.3%	80−85 −29.3%
Valorant	55−60 +41.5%	40−45 −41.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10 −40%	14−16 +40%
Elden Ring	17 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −40%	14−16 +40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +149%	50−55 −149%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
World of Tanks	100−110 +33.8%	75−80 −33.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +38.1%	21−24 −38.1%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +54.2%	24−27 −54.2%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Valorant	35−40 +33.3%	27−30 −33.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Dota 2	11 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Elden Ring	3 −133%	7−8 +133%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +38.7%	30−35 −38.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Dota 2	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Fortnite	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
Valorant	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%

This is how Arc A350M and GTX 680MX compete in popular games:

GTX 680MX is 60% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 60% faster in 1440p
Arc A350M is 60% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 149% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680MX is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A350M is ahead in 50 tests (79%)
GTX 680MX is ahead in 13 tests (21%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.63	10.76
Recency	30 March 2022	23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	122 Watt

Arc A350M has a 36% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 388% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680MX in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.