Radeon 680M vs R9 270X

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 180 Watt
10.90
+46.1%

R9 270X outperforms 680M by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking406509
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.05no data
Power efficiency4.8211.87
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameCuracaoRembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 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 cores1280768
Core clock speedno data2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate84.00105.6
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8048
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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 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 amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 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
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+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.

R9 270X 10.90
+46.1%
Radeon 680M 7.46

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.

R9 270X 4875
+46.2%
Radeon 680M 3334

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.

R9 270X 6560
Radeon 680M 6865
+4.6%

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 HD50−55
+35.1%
37
−35.1%
1440p24−27
+41.2%
17
−41.2%
4K16−18
+45.5%
11
−45.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.98no data
1440p8.29no data
4K12.44no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
−56.7%
47
+56.7%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+54.8%
40−45
−54.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−58.3%
38
+58.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
−23.3%
37
+23.3%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+44.4%
35−40
−44.4%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+54.8%
40−45
−54.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−16.7%
28
+16.7%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+5.3%
38
−5.3%
Fortnite 65−70
+40.8%
45−50
−40.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+41.7%
35−40
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−40.5%
52
+40.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
Valorant 100−110
+28%
80−85
−28%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
+50%
20
−50%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+44.4%
35−40
−44.4%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+54.8%
40−45
−54.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+33.9%
120−130
−33.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+14.3%
21
−14.3%
Dota 2 80−85
+12.7%
71
−12.7%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+14.3%
35
−14.3%
Fortnite 65−70
+40.8%
45−50
−40.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+41.7%
35−40
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−24.3%
46
+24.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+25%
36
−25%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+4.3%
23
−4.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−25%
40
+25%
Valorant 100−110
+28%
80−85
−28%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+44.4%
35−40
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+33.3%
18
−33.3%
Dota 2 80−85
+31.1%
61
−31.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+21.2%
33
−21.2%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+41.7%
35−40
−41.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+33.3%
24
−33.3%
Valorant 100−110
−39%
146
+39%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70
+40.8%
45−50
−40.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+43.5%
60−65
−43.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+5.9%
17
−5.9%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+110%
40−45
−110%
Valorant 120−130
+40.7%
90−95
−40.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+23.8%
21
−23.8%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+52.6%
18−20
−52.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+11.8%
17
−11.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+15.4%
13
−15.4%
Valorant 60−65
+52.4%
40−45
−52.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+139%
18
−139%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%

This is how R9 270X and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • R9 270X is 35% faster in 1080p
  • R9 270X is 41% faster in 1440p
  • R9 270X is 45% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 600% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 680M is 58% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 270X is ahead in 53 tests (84%)
  • Radeon 680M is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.90 7.46
Recency 8 October 2013 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 50 Watt

R9 270X has a 46.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 260% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X 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 R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
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.


4 762 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1007 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 R9 270X or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.