Radeon 680M vs GeForce 8800 GT

Place in the ranking	1049	339
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	no data
Power efficiency	0.67	21.85
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	G92	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	112	768
Core clock speed	600 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	105 Watt	50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	33.60	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.336 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	56	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	Single Slot	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None
SLI options	2-way	-

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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	57.6 GB/s	no data
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	Dual Link DVIHDTV	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.7
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	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.

8800 GT 1.22

Radeon 680M 15.95
+1207%

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.

8800 GT 471

Radeon 680M 6146
+1205%

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	2−3 −1750%	37 +1750%
1440p	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
4K	0−1	11

Cost per frame, $

1080p	174.50	no data
1440p	349.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 +0%	29 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	32 +0%	32 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	30 +0%	30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	47 +0%	47 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	27 +0%	27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +0%	43 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 +0%	40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 +0%	24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how 8800 GT and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 1750% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 1600% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.22	15.95
Recency	29 October 2007	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	105 Watt	50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 1207.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 110% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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