970M vs 680

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy
SLI

Combined performance score

GTX 680
14.29

970M outperforms 680 by 3% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking337327
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money4.983.88
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GM204
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years old)7 October 2014 (9 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $2,560.89
Current price$156 (0.3x MSRP)$848 (0.3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680 has 28% better value for money than GTX 970M.

Technical specs

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 cores15361280
CUDA cores15361280
Core clock speed1006 MHz924 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate128.8 billion/sec83.04
Floating-point performance3,090.4 gflops2,657 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GTX 970M 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
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length10.0" (25.4 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsTwo 6-pinNone
SLI options++

Memory

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 amount2048 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR5192 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s120 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC supportno data+
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Technologies

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

GameStreamno data+
GeForce ShadowPlayno data+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorksno data+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimusno data+
BatteryBoostno data+
Anselno data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.24.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA++

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 680 14.29
GTX 970M 14.79
+3.5%

970M outperforms 680 by 3% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 680 5538
GTX 970M 5732
+3.5%

970M outperforms 680 by 4% in Passmark.

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 680 29702
+3%
GTX 970M 28845

680 outperforms 970M by 3% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 680 10217
+3.4%
GTX 970M 9878

680 outperforms 970M by 3% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 680 7587
+1.7%
GTX 970M 7463

680 outperforms 970M by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 680 47130
GTX 970M 51247
+8.7%

970M outperforms 680 by 9% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 680 18429
+0.5%
GTX 970M 18330

680 outperforms 970M by 1% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 680 247306
GTX 970M 274626
+11%

970M outperforms 680 by 11% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 680 17476
+6%
GTX 970M 16481

680 outperforms 970M by 6% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 680 13248
GTX 970M 17191
+29.8%

970M outperforms 680 by 30% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 680 54
+5.9%
GTX 970M 51

680 outperforms 970M by 6% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p45
−202%
136
+202%
Full HD76
+31%
58
−31%
1440p24−27
−12.5%
27
+12.5%
4K24
+14.3%
21
−14.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−40%
42
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−34.7%
66
+34.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−2.7%
35−40
+2.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−24.3%
46
+24.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−5.1%
41
+5.1%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−22%
61
+22%
Hitman 3 35−40
−5.1%
40−45
+5.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−33.3%
40
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−20%
36
+20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−10.2%
54
+10.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−2.7%
35−40
+2.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−16.2%
43
+16.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+2.6%
38
−2.6%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−6%
53
+6%
Hitman 3 35−40
−5.1%
40−45
+5.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−9.1%
24
+9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−13.3%
34
+13.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
−7.1%
45
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
+42.9%
21
−42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−5.4%
39
+5.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+11.4%
35
−11.4%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+38.9%
36
−38.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
−18.2%
26
+18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Hitman 3 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−7.7%
14
+7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−11.1%
20
+11.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−13.3%
17
+13.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Battlefield 5 30−33
−10%
33
+10%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−17.4%
27
+17.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+4%
25
−4%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+21.7%
23
−21.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−18.2%
13
+18.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+16.7%
12
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+217%
6
−217%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

This is how GTX 680 and GTX 970M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GTX 970M is 202% faster than GTX 680

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 31% faster than GTX 970M

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 970M is 12.5% faster than GTX 680

4K resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 14.3% faster than GTX 970M

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680 is 217% faster than the GTX 970M.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 970M is 40% faster than the GTX 680.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is ahead in 8 tests (12%)
  • GTX 970M is ahead in 49 tests (72%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 14.29 14.79
Recency 22 March 2012 7 October 2014
Cost $499 $2560.89
Maximum RAM amount 2048 MB 6 GB

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GTX 970M. The differences in performance seem too small.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook one.


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

User ratings

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


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
GeForce GTX 970M

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.8 551 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 275 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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