Radeon RX 6300M vs GeForce GTX 680MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX and Radeon RX 6300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6300M outperforms GTX 680MX by an impressive 79% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 483 | 340 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.25 | 32.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | no data | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.686 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 4.0 x4 |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 55
−72.7%
| 95−100
+72.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−93.5%
|
85−90
+93.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−76.3%
|
65−70
+76.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−93.5%
|
85−90
+93.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−64.2%
|
85−90
+64.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−71.1%
|
65−70
+71.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−87.1%
|
55−60
+87.1%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−46.5%
|
120−130
+46.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−76.3%
|
65−70
+76.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−93.5%
|
85−90
+93.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−51.9%
|
200−210
+51.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−50%
|
95−100
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−64.2%
|
85−90
+64.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−71.1%
|
65−70
+71.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−78.8%
|
55−60
+78.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−94.1%
|
30−35
+94.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−87.1%
|
55−60
+87.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−65.4%
|
40−45
+65.4%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−46.5%
|
120−130
+46.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−76.3%
|
65−70
+76.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−50%
|
95−100
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−71.1%
|
65−70
+71.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−87.1%
|
55−60
+87.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−207%
|
40−45
+207%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−46.5%
|
120−130
+46.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
−64.2%
|
85−90
+64.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−107%
|
30−35
+107%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−71.6%
|
110−120
+71.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−243%
|
150−160
+243%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−61.2%
|
150−160
+61.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−120%
|
40−45
+120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−85.7%
|
35−40
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−78.6%
|
24−27
+78.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−45%
|
27−30
+45%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−89.1%
|
85−90
+89.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−130%
|
21−24
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−71.9%
|
55−60
+71.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
This is how GTX 680MX and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- RX 6300M is 73% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6300M is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6300M surpassed GTX 680MX in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.04 | 14.36 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 35 Watt |
RX 6300M has a 78.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 248.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6300M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680MX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
