T400 vs GeForce GTX 680M

Place in the ranking	504	474
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.82	no data
Power efficiency	5.83	21.59
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK104	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	4 June 2012 (12 years ago)	6 May 2021 (3 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 cores	1344	384
Core clock speed	719 MHz	420 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	1425 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.90	34.20
Floating-point processing power	2.038 TFLOPS	1.094 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
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 3.0 x16
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
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	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	115.2 GB/s	80 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

3x mini-DisplayPort

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 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2
CUDA	+	7.5

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

T400 9.39
+11%

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

T400 3610
+11%

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 9400

T400 16982
+80.7%

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 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Full HD	64 −9.4%	70−75 +9.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.85

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Valorant	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Dota 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Fortnite	50−55 −10%	55−60 +10%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Valorant	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
World of Tanks	128 −9.4%	140−150 +9.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Dota 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Valorant	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −7.1%	45−50 +7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	60−65 −6.6%	65−70 +6.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Fortnite	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

This is how GTX 680M and T400 compete in popular games:

T400 is 4% faster in 900p
T400 is 9% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.46	9.39
Recency	4 June 2012	6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt

GTX 680M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T400, on the other hand, has a 11% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The T400 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 T400 is a workstation one.

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