Radeon HD 6770 vs GeForce GTX 680MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX with Radeon HD 6770, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680MX
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
9.20
+199%

680MX outperforms HD 6770 by a whopping 199% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking528818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.54
Power efficiency5.732.17
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameno dataJuniper
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date23 October 2012 (13 years ago)21 January 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536800
Core clock speed720 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors3540 Million1,040 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt108 Watt
Texture fill rate92.2 billion/sec34.00
Floating-point processing powerno data1.36 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data40
L1 Cacheno data80 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 KB

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCIe 2.0 x16
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s76.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
3D Vision+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 APIDirectX® 11
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.11.2
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GTX 680MX 9.20
+199%
HD 6770 3.08

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 3799
+199%
Samples: 45
HD 6770 1271
Samples: 2758

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 HD55
+206%
18−20
−206%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
Fortnite 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+233%
12−14
−233%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Valorant 90−95
+200%
30−33
−200%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+211%
45−50
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Dota 2 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
Fortnite 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+233%
12−14
−233%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+225%
8−9
−225%
Valorant 90−95
+200%
30−33
−200%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Dota 2 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+233%
12−14
−233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+250%
4−5
−250%
Valorant 90−95
+200%
30−33
−200%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+233%
21−24
−233%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+200%
16−18
−200%
Valorant 100−110
+240%
30−33
−240%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+214%
7−8
−214%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+214%
7−8
−214%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Valorant 45−50
+200%
16−18
−200%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how GTX 680MX and HD 6770 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 206% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.20 3.08
Recency 23 October 2012 21 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 108 Watt

GTX 680MX has a 199% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6770, on the other hand, has 13% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6770 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680MX is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6770 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 28 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 408 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 680MX or Radeon HD 6770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.