Radeon R7 250X vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
GTX 680M SLI outperforms R7 250X by a whopping 177% 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 | 373 | 640 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
| 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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
+196%
| 45−50
−196%
|
| Full HD | 98
+180%
| 35−40
−180%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+210%
|
40−45
−210%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+186%
|
80−85
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+210%
|
40−45
−210%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+210%
|
40−45
−210%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+183%
|
40−45
−183%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+196%
|
50−55
−196%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+180%
|
55−60
−180%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+180%
|
30−33
−180%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and R7 250X compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 196% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 180% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.99 | 5.41 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 13 February 2014 |
GTX 680M SLI has a 177.1% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 250X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
