Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 780 Rev. 2 outperforms 680M by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 432 | 499 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.94 | 11.94 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2304 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 3 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 | 45−50
+21.6%
| 37
−21.6%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
+10.5%
| 19
−10.5%
|
| 4K | 12−14
+20%
| 10
−20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.42 | no data |
| 1440p | 30.90 | no data |
| 4K | 54.08 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- GTX 780 Rev. 2 is 22% faster in 1080p
- GTX 780 Rev. 2 is 11% faster in 1440p
- GTX 780 Rev. 2 is 20% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.67 | 8.67 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 780 Rev. 2 has a 23.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
