Radeon RX Vega M vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with Radeon RX Vega M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega M outperforms GTX 680M SLI by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 340 | 332 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 78.24 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | Vega |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 February 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.08 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | - | no data |
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 | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| 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
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70
−1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+6%
|
50−55
−6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1.2%
|
85−90
−1.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−1.6%
|
65−70
+1.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+4.2%
|
120−130
−4.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70
−1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
−0.4%
|
230−240
+0.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+1.1%
|
95−100
−1.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+6%
|
50−55
−6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1.2%
|
85−90
−1.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−1.6%
|
65−70
+1.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−1.7%
|
60−65
+1.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+4.2%
|
120−130
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70
−1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+1.1%
|
95−100
−1.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+6%
|
50−55
−6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−1.6%
|
65−70
+1.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+4.2%
|
120−130
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1.2%
|
85−90
−1.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+1.3%
|
150−160
−1.3%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−1.9%
|
160−170
+1.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−2.3%
|
45−50
+2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+1.2%
|
85−90
−1.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and RX Vega M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 2% faster in 900p
- RX Vega M is 2% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.50 | 17.12 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
RX Vega M has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 680M SLI and Radeon RX Vega M.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook card while Radeon RX Vega M 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.
