GeForce GTX 680M vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GTX 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
2020
9.95
+17.6%

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GTX 680M by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking454502
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.81
Power efficiencyno data5.82
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeGK104
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)4 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$310.50

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 cores961344
Core clock speedno data719 MHz
Boost clock speedno data758 MHz
Number of transistorsno data3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data100 Watt
Texture fill rateno data84.90
Floating-point processing powerno data2.038 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data112

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
Interfaceno dataMXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeDDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data115.2 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 dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX 12_112 API
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-1.1.126
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.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 9.95
+17.6%
GTX 680M 8.46

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.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 5000
+23.5%
GTX 680M 4049

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:

900p75−80
+11.9%
67
−11.9%
Full HD75−80
+17.2%
64
−17.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.85

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Fortnite 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+17.6%
30−35
−17.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+18.5%
65−70
−18.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+13%
21−24
−13%
Valorant 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Dota 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+13.9%
35−40
−13.9%
Fortnite 55−60
+16%
50−55
−16%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+17.6%
30−35
−17.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+14.9%
65−70
−14.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+13%
21−24
−13%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+15.4%
24−27
−15.4%
Valorant 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
World of Tanks 140−150
+12.5%
128
−12.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Dota 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+13.9%
35−40
−13.9%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+17.6%
30−35
−17.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+14.9%
65−70
−14.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+29.4%
16−18
−29.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Valorant 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Dota 2 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Elden Ring 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+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%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GTX 680M compete in popular games:

  • Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 12% faster in 900p
  • Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 17% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 30% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 34 tests (54%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.95 8.46
Recency 15 August 2020 4 June 2012
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 17.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M 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.


Intel Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M
GeForce GTX 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.


3.9 15 votes

Rate Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 46 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 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.