Quadro FX 4600 vs GeForce GTX 680M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with Quadro FX 4600, including specs and performance data.
GTX 680M outperforms FX 4600 by a whopping 667% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 509 | 1092 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.85 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.80 | 0.56 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | G80 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 5 March 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $310.50 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 680M has 38400% better value for money than FX 4600.
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 | 1344 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 758 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 681 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 134 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.90 | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.038 TFLOPS | 0.2304 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 112 | 24 |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 768 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 67.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
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 | 12 API | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/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.
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.
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 | 67
+738%
| 8−9
−738%
|
| Full HD | 64
+700%
| 8−9
−700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.85
+5050%
| 249.88
−5050%
|
- GTX 680M has 5050% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+710%
|
10−11
−710%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 128
+700%
|
16−18
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+710%
|
10−11
−710%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+710%
|
10−11
−710%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+771%
|
7−8
−771%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
This is how GTX 680M and FX 4600 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M is 738% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M is 700% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.44 | 1.10 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 5 March 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 768 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 134 Watt |
GTX 680M has a 667.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 34% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook card while Quadro FX 4600 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
