Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI

Place in the ranking	331	305
Place by popularity	not in top-100	48
Power efficiency	no data	83.89
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	N13E-GTX	Hawx Point
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 June 2012 (12 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	2688	768
Core clock speed	720 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	129.6
Floating-point processing power	no data	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2x 4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	3600 MHz	System Shared
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

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.8
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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 680M SLI 16.53

Radeon 780M 18.28
+10.6%

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 680M SLI 10952

Radeon 780M 12785
+16.7%

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 680M SLI 32635

Radeon 780M 41622
+27.5%

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 −5.3%	140−150 +5.3%
Full HD	96 +174%	35 −174%
1440p	14−16 −21.4%	17 +21.4%
4K	12−14 −16.7%	14 +16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −10.3%	32 +10.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −18.2%	39 +18.2%
Elden Ring	50−55 +37.8%	37 −37.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −11.3%	55−60 +11.3%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +11.5%	26 −11.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +120%	15 −120%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +4.6%	65 −4.6%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +2.3%	44 −2.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −7.5%	40−45 +7.5%
Valorant	65−70 −12.1%	70−75 +12.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −11.3%	55−60 +11.3%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +16%	25 −16%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +175%	12 −175%
Dota 2	55−60 +103%	29 −103%
Elden Ring	50−55 +21.4%	42 −21.4%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +84.4%	32 −84.4%
Fortnite	90−95 −7.7%	95−100 +7.7%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +25.9%	54 −25.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +31.1%	45 −31.1%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +40.6%	32 −40.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −8.6%	120−130 +8.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −7.5%	40−45 +7.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −11.8%	55−60 +11.8%
Valorant	65−70 −12.1%	70−75 +12.1%
World of Tanks	229 +4.1%	220−230 −4.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −11.3%	55−60 +11.3%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −10.3%	30−35 +10.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +175%	12 −175%
Dota 2	55−60 −10.2%	65−70 +10.2%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −6.8%	60−65 +6.8%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +47.8%	46 −47.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −8.6%	120−130 +8.6%
Valorant	65−70 −12.1%	70−75 +12.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +38.9%	18 −38.9%
Elden Ring	24−27 −15.4%	30−33 +15.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +31.6%	19 −31.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −8.5%	160−170 +8.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
World of Tanks	110−120 −8.7%	120−130 +8.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −8.8%	35−40 +8.8%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −14.3%	45−50 +14.3%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +28.1%	32 −28.1%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −10.8%	40−45 +10.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +5%	20 −5%
Valorant	40−45 −11.9%	45−50 +11.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Dota 2	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%
Elden Ring	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −12.2%	55−60 +12.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 −10.7%	30−35 +10.7%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Fortnite	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +41.2%	17 −41.2%
Valorant	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%

This is how GTX 680M SLI and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 5% faster in 900p
GTX 680M SLI is 174% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 21% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 17% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 175% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 780M is 18% faster.

All in all, in popular games: