GeForce FX Go 5200 vs Radeon HD 6680G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6680G2 and GeForce FX Go 5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6680G2 outperforms FX Go 5200 by a whopping 6900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1014 | 1498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | no data |
| GPU code name | no data | NV31M |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 March 2003 (21 year 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 | 800 | 5 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 150 nm |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
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 | no data | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 32 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DDR |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6680G2 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6680G2 is ahead in 29 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.40 | 0.02 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 1 March 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 150 nm |
HD 6680G2 has a 6900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6680G2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX Go 5200 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.
