GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 765M vs 680M among Laptop GPUs over 35W TDP

Gaming

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

T-Rex, Manhattan, Sky Diver Factor and Fire Strike Factor

Computing

Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Value

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

6.4

Overall Score

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M  based on its gaming, benchmarks and compute performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of GeForce GTX 765M

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 score 19,624 vs 5,897.5 More than 3.2x better 3DMark06 score
Higher clock speed 797 MHz vs 719 MHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 863 MHz vs 719 MHz More than 20% higher turbo clock speed
Higher memory clock speed 1,002 MHz vs 900 MHz More than 10% higher memory clock speed
Lower TDP 75W vs 100W 25% lower TDP
Front view of GeForce GTX 680M

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score 22,760 vs 4,021 Around 5.8x better 3DMark 11 graphics score
Significantly better PassMark score 3,377 vs 1,874 More than 80% better PassMark score
Better 3DMark vantage graphics score 20,891 vs 13,390 More than 55% better 3DMark vantage graphics score
More memory 4,096 MB vs 2,048 MB 2x more memory
Much better T-Rex score 3,356.7 vs 3,343.45 Almost the same
Much higher diablo III framerate 157.25 fps vs 111.7 fps More than 40% higher diablo III framerate
Higher memory bandwidth 115.2 GB/s vs 64.1 GB/s Around 80% higher memory bandwidth
Better floating-point performance 1,932.7 GFLOPS vs 1,224.2 GFLOPS Around 60% better floating-point performance
Much higher crysis 3 framerate 21.8 fps vs 14.2 fps Around 55% higher crysis 3 framerate
Higher texture rate 80.5 GTexel/s vs 51 GTexel/s Around 60% higher texture rate
More texture mapping units 112 vs 64 48 more texture mapping units
More render output processors 32 vs 16 Twice as many render output processors
Significantly wider memory bus 256 bit vs 128 bit 2x wider memory bus
More shading units 1,344 vs 768 576 more shading units
Better face detection score 28.08 mPixels/s vs 8.83 mPixels/s Around 3.2x better face detection score
Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate 45.8 fps vs 23.25 fps More than 95% higher BioShock infinite framerate
Slightly higher pixel rate 20.13 GPixel/s vs 12.75 GPixel/s Around 60% higher pixel rate
Higher metro: last light framerate 30.5 vs 18.2 Around 70% higher metro: last light framerate
Better cloud gate factor score 19.29 vs 15.84 More than 20% better cloud gate factor score
Better PassMark direct compute score 1,775 vs 1,273 Around 40% better PassMark direct compute score

Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 765M vs 680M

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 765M
43.54 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 680M
99.75 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 765M
8.83 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 680M
28.08 mPixels/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Battlefield 4

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus