GeForce GT 730 vs GTX 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with GeForce GT 730, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.41
+289%

GTX 680M outperforms GT 730 by a whopping 289% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking503863
Place by popularitynot in top-10037
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.720.19
Power efficiency5.773.02
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF108
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2012 (12 years ago)18 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$310.50 $59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680M has 1858% better value for money than GT 730.

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 cores134496
Core clock speed719 MHz700 MHz
Boost clock speed758 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt49 Watt
Texture fill rate84.9011.2 GT/s
Floating-point processing power2.038 TFLOPS0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs11216

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)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

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 API12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+2.1

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 8.41
+289%
GT 730 2.16

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 3239
+289%
GT 730 833

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 680M 4049
+246%
GT 730 1170

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 680M 9406
+223%
GT 730 2915

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 680M 33
+230%
GT 730 10

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
+319%
16−18
−319%
Full HD63
+294%
16−18
−294%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.933.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Hitman 3 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+292%
12−14
−292%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+314%
14−16
−314%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Hitman 3 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+292%
12−14
−292%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+314%
14−16
−314%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Hitman 3 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+292%
12−14
−292%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+314%
14−16
−314%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+313%
8−9
−313%
Hitman 3 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+342%
12−14
−342%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hitman 3 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

This is how GTX 680M and GT 730 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680M is 319% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680M is 294% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.41 2.16
Recency 4 June 2012 18 June 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 49 Watt

GTX 680M has a 289.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 730, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 104.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 730 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 730 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 GT 730
GeForce GT 730

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 45 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 6213 votes

Rate GeForce GT 730 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.