GeForce GTX 960M vs 680M SLI
Aggregated performance score
680M SLI outperforms 960M by an impressive 89% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 304 | 457 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.49 | 1.45 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | N16P-GX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (11 years ago) | 12 March 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Current price | $149 | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 680M SLI has 1865% better value for money than GTX 960M.
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 cores | 2688 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1096 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 47.04 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,505 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 680M SLI and GeForce GTX 960M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| SLI options | + | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | no data | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
680M SLI outperforms 960M by 89% based on our aggregated 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%
680M SLI outperforms 960M by 108% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
680M SLI outperforms 960M by 91% 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:
| 900p | 133
+40%
| 95
−40%
|
| Full HD | 98
+172%
| 36
−172%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
+80%
| 15
−80%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+84.6%
| 13
−84.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+36%
|
25
−36%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+47.4%
|
38
−47.4%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+53.6%
|
28
−53.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+65.7%
|
35
−65.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24
−45.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+78.9%
|
19
−78.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+80.6%
|
31
−80.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+72%
|
25
−72%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+80%
|
25
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+87.1%
|
31
−87.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+117%
|
12
−117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+84.2%
|
19
−84.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24
−45.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+209%
|
11
−209%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+115%
|
26
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+87%
|
23
−87%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+95.7%
|
23
−95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+132%
|
25
−132%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+150%
|
14
−150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+90.9%
|
11
−90.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+113%
|
8
−113%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+112%
|
17
−112%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+80%
|
15
−80%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+107%
|
15
−107%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+60%
|
10
−60%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+500%
|
3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+167%
|
6
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and GTX 960M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 40% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 172% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680M SLI is 80% faster in 1440p
- GTX 680M SLI is 85% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 500% faster than the GTX 960M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M SLI surpassed GTX 960M in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.57 | 8.78 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 12 March 2015 |
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
