GeForce GT 730 vs GTX 680MX

Place in the ranking	480	872
Place by popularity	not in top-100	34
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.19
Power efficiency	5.28	3.05
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	no data	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)	18 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	1536	96
Core clock speed	720 MHz	700 MHz
Number of transistors	3540 Million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	122 Watt	49 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.2 billion/sec	11.2 GT/s
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	16

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	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	25.6 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 Connectors	no data	1x 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.

3D Vision	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 API	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/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 680MX 9.02
+332%

GT 730 2.09

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 680MX 3593
+331%

GT 730 834

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 680MX 12227
+321%

GT 730 2902

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GTX 680MX 11307
+322%

GT 730 2682

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 680MX 36
+260%

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:

Full HD

56
+367%

12−14

−367%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

5.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +400%	6−7 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +363%	8−9 −363%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Valorant	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +400%	6−7 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Dota 2	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +333%	9−10 −333%
Fortnite	55−60 +358%	12−14 −358%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +363%	8−9 −363%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +356%	16−18 −356%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +367%	6−7 −367%
Valorant	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%
World of Tanks	130−140 +357%	30−33 −357%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +400%	6−7 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Dota 2	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +333%	9−10 −333%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +363%	8−9 −363%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +356%	16−18 −356%
Valorant	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Dota 2	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +378%	9−10 −378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
World of Tanks	65−70 +379%	14−16 −379%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Valorant	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%

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	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Fortnite	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Valorant	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%