Radeon 680M vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018, $899
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
35.86
+272%

RTX 4000 outperforms 680M by a whopping 272% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking161507
Place by popularitynot in top-10090
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.57no data
Power efficiency17.2214.83
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameTU104Rembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2018 (7 years ago)3 January 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2304768
Core clock speed1005 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate222.5105.6
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs14448
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores3612
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache2.3 MB256 KB
L2 Cache4 MB2 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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Width1-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 width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth416.0 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 Connectors3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA7.5-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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 4000 35.86
+272%
Radeon 680M 9.65

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 4000 14841
+271%
Samples: 2597
Radeon 680M 3996
Samples: 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 HD130−140
+251%
37
−251%
1440p60−65
+253%
17
−253%
4K35−40
+250%
10
−250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.92no data
1440p14.98no data
4K25.69no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 32
+0%
32
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how RTX 4000 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 is 251% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 is 253% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 is 250% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.86 9.65
Recency 13 November 2018 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 50 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 272% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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.


3.6 539 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1245 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 RTX 4000 or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.