RTX A2000 12 GB vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with RTX A2000 12 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 12 GB outperforms 680M SLI by a whopping 119% 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 | 384 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 35.43 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 35.93 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 23 November 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2688 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 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 x16 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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
−118%
| 290−300
+118%
|
| Full HD | 98
−114%
| 210−220
+114%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.14 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−109%
|
180−190
+109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−119%
|
70−75
+119%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−112%
|
140−150
+112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−109%
|
180−190
+109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−119%
|
70−75
+119%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−110%
|
130−140
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−100%
|
100−105
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−112%
|
180−190
+112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−106%
|
130−140
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−113%
|
100−105
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−114%
|
120−130
+114%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−118%
|
270−280
+118%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−112%
|
140−150
+112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−109%
|
180−190
+109%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
−118%
|
500−550
+118%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−119%
|
70−75
+119%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−111%
|
200−210
+111%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−110%
|
130−140
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−100%
|
100−105
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−112%
|
180−190
+112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−106%
|
130−140
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−113%
|
100−105
+113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−111%
|
120−130
+111%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−119%
|
70−75
+119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−114%
|
120−130
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−118%
|
270−280
+118%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−112%
|
140−150
+112%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−119%
|
70−75
+119%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−111%
|
200−210
+111%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−110%
|
130−140
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−100%
|
100−105
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−106%
|
130−140
+106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−114%
|
120−130
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−118%
|
270−280
+118%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
−112%
|
180−190
+112%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−112%
|
240−250
+112%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
−103%
|
300−310
+103%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−94.8%
|
300−310
+94.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−109%
|
90−95
+109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−110%
|
65−70
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−112%
|
70−75
+112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−105%
|
45−50
+105%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
−106%
|
70−75
+106%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−114%
|
180−190
+114%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−105%
|
45−50
+105%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−104%
|
110−120
+104%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−112%
|
55−60
+112%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and RTX A2000 12 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 12 GB is 118% faster in 900p
- RTX A2000 12 GB is 114% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.96 | 32.76 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 23 November 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
RTX A2000 12 GB has a 119% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 12 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook graphics card while RTX A2000 12 GB is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
