Radeon 680M vs RX Vega M GL

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
8.73
+17%

RX Vega M GL outperforms 680M by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking453509
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.6911.89
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code namePolaris 22Rembrandt+
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2018 (7 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 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 cores1280768
Core clock speed931 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate80.88105.6
Floating-point processing power2.588 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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width1024 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed700 MHzSystem 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

RX Vega M GL 8.73
+17%
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.

RX Vega M GL 3904
+17.1%
Radeon 680M 3334

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 HD40−45
+8.1%
37
−8.1%
1440p18−20
+5.9%
17
−5.9%
4K12−14
+9.1%
11
−9.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+16.3%
45−50
−16.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+12.6%
120−130
−12.6%
Dota 2 65−70
−4.4%
71
+4.4%
Fortnite 55−60
+16.3%
45−50
−16.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
36
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−60%
40
+60%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 65−70
+11.5%
61
−11.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.2%
24
−4.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+16.3%
45−50
−16.3%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−30%
13
+30%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 35−40
+94.4%
18
−94.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 47
+0%
47
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 37
+0%
37
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 20
+0%
20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how RX Vega M GL and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL is 8% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega M GL is 6% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega M GL is 9% faster in 4K

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

  • in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 94% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 680M is 60% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL is ahead in 13 tests (21%)
  • Radeon 680M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
  • there's a draw in 47 tests (75%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.73 7.46
Recency 1 February 2018 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 50 Watt

RX Vega M GL has a 17% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

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 RX Vega M GL
Radeon RX Vega M GL
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.


3.2 22 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1005 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 RX Vega M GL or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.