Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Place in the ranking	519	340
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.84	no data
Power efficiency	3.20	21.85
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF114	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	25 January 2011 (13 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	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	384	768
Core clock speed	823 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.67	105.6
Floating-point processing power	1.263 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	229 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	1002 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	128.3 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	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	Portable Device Dependent
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	2.1	-

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.

GTX 560 Ti 7.94

Radeon 680M 15.95
+101%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 3058

Radeon 680M 6146
+101%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 4013

Radeon 680M 10371
+158%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 15494

Radeon 680M 34600
+123%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 3470

Radeon 680M 6865
+97.8%

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:

900p	63 −90.5%	120−130 +90.5%
Full HD	66 +78.4%	37 −78.4%
1440p	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
4K	5−6 −120%	11 +120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.77	no data
1440p	31.13	no data
4K	49.80	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

−225%

39
+225%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −95%	35−40 +95%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −245%	38 +245%
Battlefield 5	24−27 −138%	55−60 +138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −119%	35−40 +119%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −142%	29 +142%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −128%	40−45 +128%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −114%	45−50 +114%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −112%	110−120 +112%
Hitman 3	14−16 −113%	32 +113%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −91.1%	85−90 +91.1%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −114%	45−50 +114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −119%	55−60 +119%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −51.8%	85−90 +51.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −95%	35−40 +95%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −182%	31 +182%
Battlefield 5	24−27 −138%	55−60 +138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −119%	35−40 +119%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −75%	21 +75%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −128%	40−45 +128%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −114%	45−50 +114%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −112%	110−120 +112%
Hitman 3	14−16 −100%	30 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −91.1%	85−90 +91.1%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −114%	45−50 +114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −80.8%	47 +80.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −73.9%	40−45 +73.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −51.8%	85−90 +51.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −95%	35−40 +95%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −145%	27 +145%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −119%	35−40 +119%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −128%	40−45 +128%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −112%	110−120 +112%
Hitman 3	14−16 −80%	27 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +4.7%	43 −4.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −53.8%	40 +53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −4.3%	24 +4.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +211%	18 −211%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−114%

45−50
+114%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −120%	30−35 +120%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −125%	27−30 +125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −400%	14−16 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −175%	11 +175%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −122%	20−22 +122%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −213%	90−95 +213%
Hitman 3	10−12 −81.8%	20−22 +81.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −220%	30−35 +220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −143%	17 +143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −110%	100−110 +110%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−123%

27−30
+123%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Hitman 3	4−5 −225%	12−14 +225%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −218%	85−90 +218%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −160%	13 +160%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −300%	4 +300%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−87.5%

14−16
+87.5%

This is how GTX 560 Ti and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 90% faster in 900p
GTX 560 Ti is 78% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 113% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 120% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 560 Ti is 211% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 680M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 70 tests (97%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.94	15.95
Recency	25 January 2011	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 100.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 240% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti 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.