Radeon RX 6300M vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI and Radeon RX 6300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6300M outperforms GTX 680M SLI by a minimal 2% 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 | 370 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 33.38 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.686 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 x4 |
| 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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72 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 | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| 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
+2.3%
| 130−140
−2.3%
|
| Full HD | 98
−2%
| 100−110
+2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−2.3%
|
85−90
+2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−2.3%
|
85−90
+2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−2.4%
|
85−90
+2.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−3.2%
|
65−70
+3.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−1.6%
|
120−130
+1.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−2.3%
|
85−90
+2.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+11.7%
|
200−210
−11.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−1.1%
|
95−100
+1.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−2.4%
|
85−90
+2.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−3.2%
|
65−70
+3.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−1.8%
|
55−60
+1.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−1.6%
|
120−130
+1.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−1.1%
|
95−100
+1.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−3.2%
|
65−70
+3.2%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−1.6%
|
120−130
+1.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
−2.4%
|
85−90
+2.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−1.8%
|
110−120
+1.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
−2%
|
150−160
+2%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−1.3%
|
150−160
+1.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−2.3%
|
40−45
+2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−2.7%
|
35−40
+2.7%
|
| God of War | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−2.4%
|
85−90
+2.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 2% faster in 900p
- RX 6300M is 2% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 12% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6300M is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI performs better in 1 test (2%)
- RX 6300M performs better in 54 tests (83%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.99 | 15.32 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
RX 6300M has a 2.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 680M SLI and Radeon RX 6300M.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
