GeForce GTX 765M vs 680MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

GTX 680MX
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
10.71
+108%

680MX outperforms 765M by a whopping 108% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking396585
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.910.53
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameno dataN14-GE
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (11 years ago)30 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Current price$200 $93

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680MX has 1581% better value for money than GTX 765M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536768
CUDA cores1536768
Core clock speed720 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data863 MHz
Number of transistors3540 Million2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate92.2 billion/sec55.23
Floating-point performanceno data1,326 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 680MX and GeForce GTX 765M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
Interfaceno dataMXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s64.0 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMIno data+
HDCP content protectionno data+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMIno data+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreamingno data+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Supportno data+
3D Vision+no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimus++
3D Vision / 3DTV Playno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 API
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkanno data1.1.126
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 10.71
+108%
GTX 765M 5.16

680MX outperforms 765M by 108% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 680MX 4142
+108%
GTX 765M 1995

680MX outperforms 765M by 108% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 680MX 6736
+67.6%
GTX 765M 4019

680MX outperforms 765M by 68% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 680MX 25501
+71.5%
GTX 765M 14870

680MX outperforms 765M by 71% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 680MX 12208
+71%
GTX 765M 7140

680MX outperforms 765M by 71% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 680MX 11307
+105%
GTX 765M 5514

680MX outperforms 765M by 105% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 680MX 36
+89.5%
GTX 765M 19

680MX outperforms 765M by 89% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p100−110
+96.1%
51
−96.1%
Full HD50
+22%
41
−22%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+162%
12−14
−162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+109%
10−12
−109%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+94.7%
18−20
−94.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+162%
12−14
−162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+109%
10−12
−109%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+94.7%
18−20
−94.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+136%
10−12
−136%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+109%
10−12
−109%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+94.7%
18−20
−94.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Hitman 3 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

This is how GTX 680MX and GTX 765M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 96% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680MX is 22% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680MX is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 680MX surpassed GTX 765M in all 68 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.71 5.16
Recency 23 October 2012 30 May 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 75 Watt

The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 765M in performance tests.


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 680MX
GeForce GTX 680MX
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
GeForce GTX 765M

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.


3.6 24 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 66 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 765M 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.