Radeon 680M vs GeForce GTX 980M SLI
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by a considerable 42% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 204 | 294 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.43 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | RDNA 2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | no data | RDNA 2 Rembrandt |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (9 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Current price | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 5200 Million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 115.2 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 980M SLI and Radeon 680M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
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 | 2x 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 42% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 112% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 38% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 171% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 187% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 31% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 110% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 1073% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 77% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 55% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 47% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 980M SLI outperforms Radeon 680M by 48% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 680M outperforms GeForce GTX 980M SLI by 1286% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
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 | 135
+50%
| 90−95
−50%
|
| Full HD | 108
+192%
| 37
−192%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
+31.3%
| 16
−31.3%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+40%
| 10
−40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+2.6%
|
39
−2.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+13.2%
|
38
−13.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+42.1%
|
55−60
−42.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
29
−37.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+28.3%
|
45−50
−28.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+39.6%
|
45−50
−39.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 60−65
+7.1%
|
56
−7.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 80−85
+6.3%
|
79
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+38.5%
|
50−55
−38.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+37.5%
|
45−50
−37.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 75−80
+33.9%
|
56
−33.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+17.9%
|
39
−17.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+38.7%
|
31
−38.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+42.1%
|
55−60
−42.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21
−90.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+63.9%
|
36
−63.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+272%
|
18
−272%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 60−65
+300%
|
15
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 80−85
+37.7%
|
61
−37.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+94.6%
|
37
−94.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+37.5%
|
45−50
−37.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 75−80
+114%
|
35
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+40%
|
40
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+39.4%
|
33
−39.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27
−59.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+135%
|
17
−135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+28.3%
|
45−50
−28.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.6%
|
55−60
−38.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 80−85
+95.3%
|
43
−95.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+112%
|
34
−112%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+133%
|
24
−133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+156%
|
18
−156%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+37.5%
|
45−50
−37.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+42.4%
|
30−35
−42.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+57.6%
|
30−35
−57.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+40%
|
24−27
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
11
−45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+48.5%
|
30−35
−48.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
+100%
|
27
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+76.5%
|
17
−76.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+48.4%
|
31
−48.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+47.4%
|
18−20
−47.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+108%
|
13
−108%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+52.6%
|
18−20
−52.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+47.8%
|
21−24
−47.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+47.4%
|
18−20
−47.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
This is how GTX 980M SLI and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M SLI is 50% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M SLI is 192% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980M SLI is 31% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980M SLI is 40% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980M SLI is 300% faster than the Radeon 680M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980M SLI surpassed Radeon 680M in all 72 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.72 | 17.35 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
