Radeon 680M vs R9 FURY X

Aggregate performance score

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

R9 FURY X
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.83
+55.4%

R9 FURY X outperforms 680M by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking217336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.83no data
Power efficiency6.2922.28
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameFijiRembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 June 2015 (9 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores4096768
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate268.8105.6
Floating-point processing power8.602 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25648
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
Length191 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)System Shared
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width4096 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1050 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth512 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data+

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

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

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-

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. 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.

R9 FURY X 24.83
+55.4%
Radeon 680M 15.98

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 FURY X 9580
+55.4%
Radeon 680M 6166

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 FURY X 16710
+143%
Radeon 680M 6865

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 HD55−60
+48.6%
37
−48.6%
1440p24−27
+41.2%
17
−41.2%
4K16−18
+45.5%
11
−45.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.80no data
1440p27.04no data
4K40.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
+0%
38
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 32
+0%
32
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 30
+0%
30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 47
+0%
47
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 27
+0%
27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+0%
43
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18
+0%
18
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

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

  • R9 FURY X is 49% faster in 1080p
  • R9 FURY X is 41% faster in 1440p
  • R9 FURY X is 45% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.83 15.98
Recency 24 June 2015 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 55.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 450% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 FURY X
Radeon R9 FURY X
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3 83 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 935 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.