Radeon 680M vs R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.
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 ranking | 409 | 513 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.82 | 11.87 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 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.
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 | 1280 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable 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.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| 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.
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 | 50−55
+35.1%
| 37
−35.1%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
+41.2%
| 17
−41.2%
|
| 4K | 16−18
+45.5%
| 11
−45.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.98 | no data |
| 1440p | 8.29 | no data |
| 4K | 12.44 | no 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
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| 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
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+54.8%
|
40−45
−54.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+33.1%
|
120−130
−33.1%
|
| 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
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| 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 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| 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 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| 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 500% 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 | 10.91 | 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 46.2% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
