Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 760M

Place in the ranking	660	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.65	22.28
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK106	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 May 2013 (11 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year 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	768	768
Core clock speed	657 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	657 MHz	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	42.05	105.6
Floating-point processing power	1.009 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	64	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, PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Standard memory configuration	GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	64.0 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	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. 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 760M 4.46

Radeon 680M 15.98
+258%

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 760M 1720

Radeon 680M 6166
+258%

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.

GTX 760M 3369

Radeon 680M 10371
+208%

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.

GTX 760M 14007

Radeon 680M 34600
+147%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 760M 2271

Radeon 680M 6865
+202%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 760M 15900

Radeon 680M 43225
+172%

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	41 −241%	140−150 +241%
Full HD	44 +18.9%	37 −18.9%
1440p	4−5 −325%	17 +325%
4K	3−4 −267%	11 +267%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−388%

39
+388%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −225%	35−40 +225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −850%	38 +850%
Battlefield 5	10−12 −418%	55−60 +418%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −263%	29 +263%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −356%	40−45 +356%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −292%	45−50 +292%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Hitman 3	10−11 −220%	32 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −187%	85−90 +187%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −500%	60−65 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −292%	45−50 +292%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −256%	55−60 +256%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −93.2%	85−90 +93.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −225%	35−40 +225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −675%	31 +675%
Battlefield 5	10−12 −418%	55−60 +418%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −163%	21 +163%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −356%	40−45 +356%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −292%	45−50 +292%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Hitman 3	10−11 −200%	30 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −187%	85−90 +187%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −500%	60−65 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −292%	45−50 +292%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −194%	47 +194%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −93.2%	85−90 +93.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −225%	35−40 +225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −575%	27 +575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −356%	40−45 +356%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −43.3%	43 +43.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −150%	40 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −41.2%	24 +41.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +144%	18 −144%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−292%

45−50
+292%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −450%	11 +450%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −300%	20−22 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1075%	90−95 +1075%
Hitman 3	9−10 −122%	20−22 +122%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −3100%	30−35 +3100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −467%	17 +467%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −275%	100−110 +275%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−263%

27−30
+263%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1200%	12−14 +1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −2867%	85−90 +2867%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	13

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	4
Far Cry 5	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−200%

14−16
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

+0%

This is how GTX 760M and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 241% faster in 900p
GTX 760M is 19% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 325% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 267% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 760M is 144% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 680M is 3100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 760M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 66 tests (94%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.46	15.98
Recency	30 May 2013	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 258.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 760M in performance tests.

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