Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.
680M SLI outperforms Pro 16 by a substantial 30% 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 | 385 | 451 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.77 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (7 years 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 76.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 307.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
+33%
| 100−110
−33%
|
| Full HD | 98
+66.1%
| 59
−66.1%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+27.5%
|
50−55
−27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+29.2%
|
45−50
−29.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+23.2%
|
65−70
−23.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+26%
|
50−55
−26%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+30.6%
|
35−40
−30.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+18.1%
|
100−110
−18.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+27.5%
|
50−55
−27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+36.3%
|
160−170
−36.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+26.7%
|
75
−26.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+29.2%
|
45−50
−29.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+23.2%
|
65−70
−23.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+26%
|
50−55
−26%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+30.6%
|
35−40
−30.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+29.5%
|
40−45
−29.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+18.1%
|
100−110
−18.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+27.5%
|
50−55
−27.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+31.9%
|
72
−31.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+29.2%
|
45−50
−29.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+26%
|
50−55
−26%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27
−51.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+18.1%
|
100−110
−18.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+23.2%
|
65−70
−23.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+36.4%
|
21−24
−36.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+27.3%
|
85−90
−27.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+85.9%
|
75−80
−85.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+22.4%
|
120−130
−22.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+38.7%
|
30−35
−38.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+32%
|
24−27
−32%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+42.1%
|
38
−42.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+30%
|
20−22
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 33% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 66% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680M SLI is 18% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 86% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M SLI surpassed Pro Vega 16 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.78 | 11.39 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 14 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
GTX 680M SLI has a 29.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 16 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
