Radeon 680M vs TITAN Xp

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared TITAN Xp with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

TITAN Xp
2017
12 GB GDDR5X, 250 Watt
48.51
+482%

TITAN Xp outperforms 680M by a whopping 482% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking65506
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.61no data
Power efficiency13.9311.96
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP102Rembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 April 2017 (7 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores3840768
Core clock speed1405 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1582 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate379.7105.6
Floating-point processing power12.15 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs24048
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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5XSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount12 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1426 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth547.6 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-

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.

TITAN Xp 48.51
+482%
Radeon 680M 8.33

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.

TITAN Xp 19424
+483%
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 HD210−220
+468%
37
−468%
1440p100−110
+456%
18
−456%
4K55−60
+450%
10
−450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.71no data
1440p11.99no data
4K21.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Metro Exodus 39
+0%
39
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 161
+0%
161
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30
+0%
30
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
+0%
2
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how TITAN Xp and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • TITAN Xp is 468% faster in 1080p
  • TITAN Xp is 456% faster in 1440p
  • TITAN Xp is 450% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 48.51 8.33
Recency 6 April 2017 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 16 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 50 Watt

TITAN Xp has a 482.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The TITAN Xp is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN Xp is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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.


NVIDIA TITAN Xp
TITAN Xp
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.


2.1 4678 votes

Rate TITAN Xp on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 997 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 TITAN Xp or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.