Radeon 680M vs HD 6790

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6790 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

HD 6790
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
4.04

680M outperforms HD 6790 by a whopping 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking698506
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.81no data
Power efficiency1.8911.90
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameBartsRembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 April 2011 (13 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores800768
Core clock speed840 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors1,700 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate33.60105.6
Floating-point processing power1.344 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4048
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 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length198 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1050 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth134.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.7
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.0
VulkanN/A1.3

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.

HD 6790 4.04
Radeon 680M 8.47
+110%

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.

HD 6790 1588
Radeon 680M 3334
+110%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 6790 2887
Radeon 680M 10371
+259%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 6790 13637
Radeon 680M 34600
+154%

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.

HD 6790 2150
Radeon 680M 6865
+219%

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:

900p52
−92.3%
100−110
+92.3%
Full HD61
+64.9%
37
−64.9%
1440p8−9
−113%
17
+113%
4K5−6
−120%
11
+120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.44no data
1440p18.63no data
4K29.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−370%
47
+370%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−180%
28
+180%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−375%
38
+375%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−270%
37
+270%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−140%
35−40
+140%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−130%
23
+130%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−250%
28
+250%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−280%
38
+280%
Fortnite 21−24
−123%
45−50
+123%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−100%
35−40
+100%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−375%
38
+375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−81.3%
27−30
+81.3%
Valorant 50−55
−54.7%
80−85
+54.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−100%
20
+100%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−140%
35−40
+140%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21
+110%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
−84.1%
120−130
+84.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−163%
21
+163%
Dota 2 35−40
−103%
71
+103%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−250%
35
+250%
Fortnite 21−24
−123%
45−50
+123%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−100%
35−40
+100%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−200%
36
+200%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−229%
23
+229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−81.3%
27−30
+81.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−264%
40
+264%
Valorant 50−55
−54.7%
80−85
+54.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−140%
35−40
+140%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−125%
18
+125%
Dota 2 35−40
−74.3%
61
+74.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−230%
33
+230%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−100%
35−40
+100%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−225%
26
+225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−81.3%
27−30
+81.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−118%
24
+118%
Valorant 50−55
−175%
146
+175%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−123%
45−50
+123%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−114%
60−65
+114%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
−467%
17
+467%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−50%
40−45
+50%
Valorant 40−45
−124%
90−95
+124%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 18−20
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10
+233%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−200%
21
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−111%
18−20
+111%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−183%
17
+183%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−18.8%
18−20
+18.8%
Valorant 18−20
−121%
40−45
+121%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4
+300%
Dota 2 12−14
−50%
18
+50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD 6790 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 92% faster in 900p
  • HD 6790 is 65% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 113% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 120% 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 467% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is ahead in 60 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.04 8.47
Recency 4 April 2011 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 109.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6790 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6790 is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon HD 6790
Radeon HD 6790
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.


4 154 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6790 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 999 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6790 or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.