Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 960M vs 680M |
Released March, 2015
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M
- 1.1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
7.4 Out of 10
by Sebastian-Peak (Jan, 2015)The site is calling this an overclock, but it's still likely that the core would have a faster clock speed than the GTX 970 and 980.
VS
Released June, 2012
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M
- 719 MHz
- 4 GB GDDR5
7.1 Out of 10
by Ryan-Smith (Mar, 2012)While NVIDIA has used DVI and HDMI ports for quite some time, this is the first time NVIDIA has included DIsplayPort on a reference design.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 960M 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 | |
| 7.4 | 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 | 1,097 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | Around 55% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much higher turbo clock speed | 1,176 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | Around 65% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,012 MHz | vs | 3,600 MHz | Around 40% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better bitcoin mining score | 174.61 mHash/s | vs | 99.75 mHash/s | More than 75% better bitcoin mining score | |||
| 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 | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 3,377 | vs | 2,043 | More than 65% better PassMark score | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Much higher diablo III framerate | 157.25 fps | vs | 121.3 fps | Around 30% higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 112 | vs | 40 | 72 more texture mapping units | |||
| 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 | 43.9 GTexel/s | Around 85% higher texture rate | |||
| More shading units | 1,344 | vs | 640 | 704 more shading units | |||
| Slightly better floating-point performance | 1,932.7 GFLOPS | vs | 1,404.2 GFLOPS | Around 40% better floating-point performance | |||
| 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 | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 1,775 | vs | 1,479 | More than 20% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher thief framerate | 31.3 | vs | 27.8 | Around 15% higher thief framerate | |||
| Higher crysis 3 framerate | 21.8 fps | vs | 20.75 fps | More than 5% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
Report a correction
