Radeon 680M vs RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
470 Mobile outperforms 680M by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 354 | 523 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.52 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.77 | 13.12 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 MB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 70−75
+89.2%
| 37
−89.2%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
+76.5%
| 17
−76.5%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+90.9%
| 11
−90.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.86 | no data |
| 1440p | 18.33 | no data |
| 4K | 26.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+107%
|
45−50
−107%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−8.6%
|
38
+8.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−9.7%
|
34
+9.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+86.8%
|
35−40
−86.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+107%
|
45−50
−107%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+25%
|
28
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+44.7%
|
38
−44.7%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+73.6%
|
50−55
−73.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+81.6%
|
35−40
−81.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+1.9%
|
52
−1.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+40.9%
|
22
−40.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−35
−103%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+51.7%
|
85−90
−51.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+86.8%
|
35−40
−86.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+107%
|
45−50
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+58.5%
|
130−140
−58.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+42.3%
|
71
−42.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+57.1%
|
35
−57.1%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+73.6%
|
50−55
−73.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+81.6%
|
35−40
−81.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+15.2%
|
46
−15.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+75%
|
36
−75%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+55%
|
20
−55%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+52.2%
|
23
−52.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−35
−103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+15%
|
40
−15%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+51.7%
|
85−90
−51.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+86.8%
|
35−40
−86.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18
−94.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+65.6%
|
61
−65.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+66.7%
|
33
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+81.6%
|
35−40
−81.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+121%
|
14
−121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−35
−103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24
−91.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−10.6%
|
146
+10.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+73.6%
|
50−55
−73.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+83.6%
|
65−70
−83.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+64.7%
|
17
−64.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+266%
|
40−45
−266%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+69.1%
|
95−100
−69.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+50%
|
10
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21
−76.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+47.1%
|
17
−47.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+55%
|
20−22
−55%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+84.6%
|
13
−84.6%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+109%
|
45−50
−109%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+228%
|
18
−228%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
This is how RX 470 Mobile and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:
- RX 470 Mobile is 89% faster in 1080p
- RX 470 Mobile is 76% faster in 1440p
- RX 470 Mobile is 91% 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 RX 470 Mobile is 367% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 680M is 11% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 470 Mobile performs better in 63 tests (95%)
- Radeon 680M performs better in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.59 | 8.15 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 50 Watt |
RX 470 Mobile has a 91.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 470 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
