Radeon 680M vs Quadro RTX 8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 8000 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms 680M by a whopping 420% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 78 | 512 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.91 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.08 | 14.09 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU102 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 4608 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 18,600 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 509.8 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.31 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 288 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 576 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 4.5 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| 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.
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.
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 HD | 190−200
+414%
| 37
−414%
|
| 1440p | 85−90
+400%
| 17
−400%
|
| 4K | 50−55
+400%
| 10
−400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 52.63 | no data |
| 1440p | 117.64 | no data |
| 4K | 199.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 38
+0%
|
38
+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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+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
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+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 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how RTX 8000 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 414% faster in 1080p
- RTX 8000 is 400% faster in 1440p
- RTX 8000 is 400% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 47.65 | 9.17 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 8000 has a 419.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 8000 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.
