Radeon 680M vs GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

RTX 3050 8 GB
2022
8 GB GDDR6, 130 Watt
28.21
+278%

RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms 680M by a whopping 278% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking173509
Place by popularity14not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation64.13no data
Power efficiency17.2711.87
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGA106Rembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 January 2022 (3 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores2560768
Core clock speed1552 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1777 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors12,000 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate142.2105.6
Floating-point processing power9.098 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8048
Tensor Cores80no data
Ray Tracing Cores2012

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Length242 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1750 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4aPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.66.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA8.6-
DLSS+-

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.

RTX 3050 8 GB 28.21
+278%
Radeon 680M 7.46

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.

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+278%
Radeon 680M 3334

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 HD130−140
+251%
37
−251%
1440p60−65
+253%
17
−253%
4K40−45
+264%
11
−264%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.92no data
1440p4.15no data
4K6.23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 47
+0%
47
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 37
+0%
37
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 20
+0%
20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how RTX 3050 8 GB and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 251% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 253% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 264% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.21 7.46
Recency 4 January 2022 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 8 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 50 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 278.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 13931 vote

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1007 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.