GeForce GTX 680MX vs Radeon HD 8970M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 680MX outperforms Radeon HD 8970M by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 412 | 392 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 11.11 | 8.60 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Neptune | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 May 2013 (10 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $135 | $200 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 8970M has 29% better value for money than GTX 680MX.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 3540 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 72.00 | 92.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 2,304 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8970M and GeForce GTX 680MX compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 160 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 680MX outperforms Radeon HD 8970M by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 680MX outperforms Radeon HD 8970M by 7% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 680MX outperforms Radeon HD 8970M by 37% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon HD 8970M outperforms GeForce GTX 680MX by 1% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 53
−3.8%
| 55
+3.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
−3.7%
|
27−30
+3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
−3.7%
|
27−30
+3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+19.2%
|
26
−19.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+28.6%
|
14
−28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how HD 8970M and GTX 680MX compete in popular games:
- GTX 680MX is 3.8% faster than HD 8970M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8970M is 28.6% faster than the GTX 680MX.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680MX is 25% faster than the HD 8970M.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8970M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- GTX 680MX is ahead in 57 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (13%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 10.01 | 10.70 |
| Recency | 15 May 2013 | 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8970M and GeForce GTX 680MX.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
