Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M based on its gaming, benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 860M vs 680M |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 860M 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 | |
| 1.4 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,020 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | More than 40% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,012 MHz | vs | 3,600 MHz | Around 40% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,085 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | More than 50% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,253 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | Around 40% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 75W | vs | 100W | 25% lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Much better T-Rex score | 3,356.7 | vs | 2,890.54 | More than 15% better T-Rex score | |||
| Much better PassMark score | 3,377 | vs | 1,719 | More than 95% better PassMark score | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Much higher diablo III framerate | 157.25 fps | vs | 105.24 fps | Around 50% higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 20,891 | vs | 18,276.5 | Around 15% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 112 | vs | 40 | 72 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 5,897.5 | vs | 4,902 | More than 20% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | vs | 80.2 GB/s | Around 45% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher texture rate | 80.5 GTexel/s | vs | 40.8 GTexel/s | More than 95% higher texture rate | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,932.7 GFLOPS | vs | 1,305.6 GFLOPS | Around 50% better floating-point performance | |||
| More shading units | 1,344 | vs | 640 | 704 more shading 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 | |||
| Higher crysis 3 framerate | 21.8 fps | vs | 18.75 fps | More than 15% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| Slightly better face detection score | 28.08 mPixels/s | vs | 22.83 mPixels/s | Around 25% better face detection score | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 860M vs 680M
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
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
Thief
Battlefield 4
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| 860M vs 960M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs 850M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs 950M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs 765M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs 870M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs 770M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 860M vs R9 M290X | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $304 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| $304 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS |  |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
 | VS | |
| $274 | ||
| 750 Ti vs 960 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 970 vs R9 390 | ||
| | VS | |
| 960 vs 1050 Ti | ||
