Radeon 680M vs 620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 620 and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M outperforms 620 by a whopping 279% 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 | 884 | 519 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.46 | 13.10 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 24 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1024 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.58 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 9−10
−311%
| 37
+311%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−325%
| 17
+325%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−450%
| 11
+450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−660%
|
38
+660%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−386%
|
34
+386%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−460%
|
28
+460%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−533%
|
38
+533%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−382%
|
50−55
+382%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−940%
|
52
+940%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−214%
|
22
+214%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−158%
|
30−35
+158%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−200%
|
130−140
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21
+320%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−196%
|
71
+196%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−382%
|
50−55
+382%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−620%
|
36
+620%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−186%
|
20
+186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−475%
|
23
+475%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−158%
|
30−35
+158%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−344%
|
40
+344%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−154%
|
61
+154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
33
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−100%
|
14
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−158%
|
30−35
+158%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−167%
|
24
+167%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−248%
|
146
+248%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
−382%
|
50−55
+382%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−319%
|
65−70
+319%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−109%
|
45−50
+109%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−411%
|
95−100
+411%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−309%
|
45−50
+309%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−200%
|
18
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+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%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 620 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is 311% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 680M is 325% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 680M is 450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 680M is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 680M performs better in 56 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.27 | 8.60 |
| Recency | 13 May 2019 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
Radeon 680M has a 278.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 620 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
