GeForce GTX 680M SLI vs 1060 6 GB

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB with GeForce GTX 680M SLI, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1060 6 GB
2016
6 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
26.55
+61%

1060 6 GB outperforms 680M SLI by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking187306
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.1429.03
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGP106N13E-GTX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date19 July 2016 (7 years ago)4 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 no data
Current price$911 (3x MSRP)$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680M SLI has 825% better value for money than GTX 1060 6 GB.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores12802688
Core clock speed1506 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed1708 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Wattno data
Texture fill rate136.7no data
Floating-point performance4,375 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB and GeForce GTX 680M SLI compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length250 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data
SLI optionsno data+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2x 4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit2x 256 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz3600 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+no data
G-SYNC support+no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimusno data+
VR Ready+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131no data
CUDA6.1+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 1060 6 GB 26.55
+61%
GTX 680M SLI 16.49

1060 6 GB outperforms 680M SLI by 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1060 6 GB 17401
+58.9%
GTX 680M SLI 10952

1060 6 GB outperforms 680M SLI by 59% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1060 6 GB 55893
+71.3%
GTX 680M SLI 32635

1060 6 GB outperforms 680M SLI by 71% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 1060 6 GB 9091
+8357%
GTX 680M SLI 108

1060 6 GB outperforms 680M SLI by 8357% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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:

900p210−220
+57.9%
133
−57.9%
Full HD94
−18.1%
111
+18.1%
1440p47
+74.1%
27−30
−74.1%
4K34
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 72 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 no data
Battlefield 5 89 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 83 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 82 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100 no data
Hitman 3 50−55 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 no data
Metro Exodus 92 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 100 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 61 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 no data
Battlefield 5 78 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 64 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 64 no data
Forza Horizon 4 260 no data
Hitman 3 50−55 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 no data
Metro Exodus 76 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 82 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 38 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 43 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 50 no data
Forza Horizon 4 73 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 69 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 48 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 50 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 32 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 39 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 no data
Far Cry 5 47 no data
Forza Horizon 4 57 no data
Hitman 3 30−35 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 no data
Metro Exodus 50 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 46 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 22 no data
Hitman 3 21−24 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 no data
Far Cry 5 15 no data
Forza Horizon 4 38 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35 no data
Metro Exodus 26 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 22 no data

This is how GTX 1060 6 GB and GTX 680M SLI compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1060 6 GB is 58% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680M SLI is 18% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1060 6 GB is 74% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1060 6 GB is 62% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.55 16.49
Recency 19 July 2016 4 June 2012
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm

The GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M SLI
GeForce GTX 680M SLI

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


4.2 12115 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.