GeForce 6800 XT vs GTX 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with GeForce 6800 XT, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.46
+2544%

GTX 680M outperforms 6800 XT by a whopping 2544% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5021312
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.81no data
Power efficiency5.82no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGK104NV42
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2012 (12 years ago)30 September 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$310.50 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1344no data
Core clock speed719 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed758 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million202 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate84.905.400
Floating-point processing power2.038 TFLOPSno data
ROPs328
TMUs11212

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x Molex
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s38.4 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

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.

DirectX12 API9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.52.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL1.1N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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 8.46
+2544%
6800 XT 0.32

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 680M 3251
+2543%
6800 XT 123

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:

900p67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
Full HD64
+3100%
2−3
−3100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.85no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Elden Ring 24−27 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
Valorant 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Elden Ring 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Fortnite 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Valorant 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
World of Tanks 128
+3100%
4−5
−3100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
Valorant 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−11 0−1
Elden Ring 10−12 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 60−65
+2950%
2−3
−2950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 0−1
Valorant 21−24 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Valorant 8−9 0−1

This is how GTX 680M and 6800 XT compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680M is 3250% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680M is 3100% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.46 0.32
Recency 4 June 2012 30 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm

GTX 680M has a 2543.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6800 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook card while GeForce 6800 XT is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M
GeForce GTX 680M
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 XT
GeForce 6800 XT

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 46 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 45 votes

Rate GeForce 6800 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.