Radeon 680M vs Quadro P400

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P400
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.29

680M outperforms P400 by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking681501
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.52no data
Power efficiency9.8611.96
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP107Rembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores256768
Core clock speed1228 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate20.03105.6
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1648
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1002 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth32.06 GB/sno 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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-

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. 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.

Quadro P400 4.29
Radeon 680M 8.67
+102%

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 P400 1648
Radeon 680M 3334
+102%

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 HD18−20
−106%
37
+106%
1440p9−10
−111%
19
+111%
4K4−5
−150%
10
+150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.67no data
1440p13.33no data
4K30.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Metro Exodus 39
+0%
39
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 161
+0%
161
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30
+0%
30
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
+0%
2
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Quadro P400 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 106% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 111% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 150% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.29 8.67
Recency 7 February 2017 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro P400 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 102.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation 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.

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 P400
Quadro P400
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.


4.1 494 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 987 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.