Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M outperforms 280M SLI by a whopping 179% 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 | 799 | 529 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 74 |
| Power efficiency | 1.64 | 13.69 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (3 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 | 256 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 12−14
−208%
| 37
+208%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−183%
| 17
+183%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−233%
| 10
+233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−336%
|
45−50
+336%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−443%
|
38
+443%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−336%
|
45−50
+336%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−300%
|
28
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−322%
|
38
+322%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−550%
|
52
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−85.4%
|
85−90
+85.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−336%
|
45−50
+336%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−130%
|
130−140
+130%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−129%
|
71
+129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−289%
|
35
+289%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−475%
|
46
+475%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−300%
|
36
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−283%
|
23
+283%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−300%
|
40
+300%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−85.4%
|
85−90
+85.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−157%
|
18
+157%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−96.8%
|
61
+96.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−267%
|
33
+267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−140%
|
24
+140%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−204%
|
146
+204%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−188%
|
65−70
+188%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 17 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−67.9%
|
45−50
+67.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−250%
|
21
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−240%
|
17
+240%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−194%
|
45−50
+194%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−80%
|
18
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 280M SLI and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is 208% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 680M is 183% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 680M is 233% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 680M is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 680M performs better in 52 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.19 | 8.89 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 50 Watt |
Radeon 680M has a 179% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 817% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M SLI in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
