GeForce GTX 680MX vs Radeon R9 M390X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M390X and GeForce GTX 680MX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M390X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
9.33

GTX 680MX outperforms R9 M390X by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking473431
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.526.03
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystno data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)

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 cores20481536
Core clock speed723 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3540 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5492.2 billion/sec
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data

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).

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s160 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
3D Vision-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan+-
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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 M390X 9.33
GTX 680MX 10.74
+15.1%

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 M390X 3597
GTX 680MX 4138
+15%

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.

R9 M390X 9448
+40.3%
GTX 680MX 6736

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
−22%
61
+22%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−13.6%
24−27
+13.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−17.2%
30−35
+17.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−15.8%
21−24
+15.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−14.5%
70−75
+14.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−11.5%
55−60
+11.5%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−6.6%
65−70
+6.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−13.6%
24−27
+13.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−17.2%
30−35
+17.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−15.8%
21−24
+15.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−14.5%
70−75
+14.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−11.5%
55−60
+11.5%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−7.7%
27−30
+7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−6.6%
65−70
+6.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−13.6%
24−27
+13.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−15.8%
21−24
+15.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−14.5%
70−75
+14.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−11.5%
55−60
+11.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+85.7%
14
−85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−6.6%
65−70
+6.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−22.5%
45−50
+22.5%
Hitman 3 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−15.8%
21−24
+15.8%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−15.3%
65−70
+15.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−20%
18−20
+20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
−26.3%
45−50
+26.3%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%

This is how R9 M390X and GTX 680MX compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680MX is 22% faster 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 R9 M390X is 86% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680MX is 40% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M390X is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 680MX is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.33 10.74
Recency 5 May 2015 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 122 Watt

R9 M390X has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 22% lower power consumption.

GTX 680MX, on the other hand, has a 15.1% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390X in performance tests.


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 M390X
Radeon R9 M390X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
GeForce GTX 680MX

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.


5 2 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M390X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 24 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680MX 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.