GeForce GTX 680M SLI vs GTX 970M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 970M and GeForce GTX 680M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 680M SLI outperforms GTX 970M by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 389 | 366 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 12.49 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | N13E-GTX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (10 years ago) | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,560.89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1280 | 2688 |
| Core clock speed | 924 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 83.04 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.657 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2x 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 3600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120 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 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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.
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.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 136
+2.3%
| 133
−2.3%
|
| Full HD | 58
−69%
| 98
+69%
|
| 1440p | 27
+0%
| 27−30
+0%
|
| 4K | 21
+0%
| 21−24
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.15 | no data |
| 1440p | 94.85 | no data |
| 4K | 121.95 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−10.3%
|
85−90
+10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−10.3%
|
85−90
+10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+89.5%
|
85−90
−89.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
−4.9%
|
60−65
+4.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−11.6%
|
45−50
+11.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60
+7.1%
|
55−60
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−6%
|
120−130
+6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 54
−22.2%
|
65−70
+22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−10.3%
|
85−90
+10.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
−20.5%
|
229
+20.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
−16.3%
|
50−55
+16.3%
|
| Fortnite | 65
−32.3%
|
85−90
+32.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−20.8%
|
60−65
+20.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−11.6%
|
45−50
+11.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
−18.4%
|
55−60
+18.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
−14.3%
|
55−60
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+9.8%
|
40−45
−9.8%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−6%
|
120−130
+6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−34.7%
|
65−70
+34.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−28.2%
|
50−55
+28.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
−77.8%
|
60−65
+77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
−69.7%
|
55−60
+69.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−6%
|
120−130
+6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 49
−75.5%
|
85−90
+75.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−9.7%
|
110−120
+9.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−19.8%
|
140−150
+19.8%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−7.6%
|
150−160
+7.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−30.3%
|
40−45
+30.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−25.9%
|
30−35
+25.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
−65.2%
|
35−40
+65.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 31
−9.7%
|
30−35
+9.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+17.9%
|
27−30
−17.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−10.5%
|
80−85
+10.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
This is how GTX 970M and GTX 680M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 970M is 2% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 69% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- A tie in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 970M is 90% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 970M is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- GTX 680M SLI is ahead in 61 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.29 | 15.78 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 4 June 2012 |
GTX 970M has an age advantage of 2 years.
GTX 680M SLI, on the other hand, has a 10.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 970M 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.
