Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GeForce GTX 680M

Place in the ranking	502	23
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.71	29.89
Power efficiency	5.77	15.86
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK104	Navi 21
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	4 June 2012 (12 years ago)	28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$310.50	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6900 XT has 706% better value for money than GTX 680M.

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	5120
Core clock speed	719 MHz	1825 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	2250 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.90	720.0
Floating-point processing power	2.038 TFLOPS	23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	128
TMUs	112	320
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	80

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 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 8-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	115.2 GB/s	512.0 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	1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
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.

DirectX	12 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2
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 8.41

RX 6900 XT 69.42
+725%

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

RX 6900 XT 26751
+726%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 680M 5898

RX 6900 XT 59119
+902%

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

RX 6900 XT 50587
+1149%

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 −721%	550−600 +721%
Full HD	63 −211%	196 +211%
1440p	14−16 −829%	130 +829%
4K	9−10 −800%	81 +800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.93	5.10
1440p	22.18	7.68
4K	34.50	12.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

−938%

130−140
+938%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −485%	117 +485%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −1308%	169 +1308%
Battlefield 5	24−27 −788%	220−230 +788%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −600%	110−120 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −938%	130−140 +938%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −516%	110−120 +516%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −639%	170−180 +639%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −333%	230−240 +333%
Hitman 3	16−18 −706%	120−130 +706%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −438%	250−260 +438%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −520%	150−160 +520%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −430%	120−130 +430%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −946%	290−300 +946%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −162%	150−160 +162%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −1295%	279 +1295%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −1083%	142 +1083%
Battlefield 5	24−27 −788%	220−230 +788%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −600%	110−120 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −938%	130−140 +938%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −516%	110−120 +516%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −639%	170−180 +639%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −333%	230−240 +333%
Hitman 3	16−18 −706%	120−130 +706%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −438%	250−260 +438%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −520%	150−160 +520%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −430%	120−130 +430%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −946%	290−300 +946%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −521%	140−150 +521%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −162%	150−160 +162%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −390%	98 +390%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −1042%	137 +1042%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −600%	110−120 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −938%	130−140 +938%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −516%	110−120 +516%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −351%	248 +351%
Hitman 3	16−18 −706%	120−130 +706%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 −502%	283 +502%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −946%	290−300 +946%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −583%	164 +583%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −109%	121 +109%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−430%

120−130
+430%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −931%	160−170 +931%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −754%	110−120 +754%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1138%	99 +1138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −2625%	109 +2625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −913%	80−85 +913%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1750%	70−75 +1750%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −720%	80−85 +720%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −721%	270−280 +721%
Hitman 3	12−14 −742%	100−110 +742%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1218%	224 +1218%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −964%	117 +964%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2363%	190−200 +2363%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −1475%	120−130 +1475%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −351%	230−240 +351%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−714%

110−120
+714%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −1143%	85−90 +1143%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −1050%	65−70 +1050%
Hitman 3	4−5 −1975%	83 +1975%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −629%	220−230 +629%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −2340%	122 +2340%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −1260%	68 +1260%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −1550%	66 +1550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −1175%	50−55 +1175%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −1520%	162 +1520%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −2650%	110−120 +2650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −1700%	54 +1700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−838%

75−80
+838%

This is how GTX 680M and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

RX 6900 XT is 721% faster in 900p
RX 6900 XT is 211% faster in 1080p
RX 6900 XT is 829% faster in 1440p
RX 6900 XT is 800% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 3400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6900 XT surpassed GTX 680M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.41	69.42
Recency	4 June 2012	28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	300 Watt

GTX 680M has 200% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 725.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6900 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.