Radeon 680M vs Quadro 6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 6000 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 6000
2010
6 GB GDDR5, 204 Watt
6.42

680M outperforms 6000 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking602520
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.07no data
Power efficiency2.4013.10
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGF100Rembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date10 December 2010 (14 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,399 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

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 cores448768
Core clock speed574 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate32.14105.6
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs5648
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache896 KB256 KB
L2 Cache768 KB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data8 MB

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 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount6 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed747 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth143.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.0-

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.

Quadro 6000 6.42
Radeon 680M 8.60
+34%

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.

Quadro 6000 Samples: 260 2691
Radeon 680M Samples: 3 3604
+33.9%

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 HD27−30
−37%
37
+37%
1440p12−14
−41.7%
17
+41.7%
4K8−9
−37.5%
11
+37.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p162.93no data
1440p366.58no data
4K549.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 34
+0%
34
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+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 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Quadro 6000 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 37% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 42% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 38% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.42 8.60
Recency 10 December 2010 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 34% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 308% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 6000 is a workstation graphics 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 Quadro 6000
Quadro 6000
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.


3.8 41 votes

Rate Quadro 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1108 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 6000 or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.