Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970M based on its gaming, benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 970M vs 680M |
Released October, 2014
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970M
- 1 GHz
- 6 GB GDDR5
7.8 Out of 10
by Jarred-Walton (Apr, 2013)As for the Boost clocks, in practice that can increase the GPU core speed 15% or more over the normal value, with most games realizing a 10-15% performance thanks to the increase.
VS
Released June, 2012
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680M
- 719 MHz
- 4 GB GDDR5
7 Out of 10
by Joel-Hruska (Mar, 2013)The productivity improvements from a dual display are very real, and while 3x monitors are only a boost if you work with multiple full-screen programs simultaneously, the additional cost is smaller if you’re looking to build a dual-monitor workstation to begin with.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 970M vs 680M among Laptop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.8 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970MGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,038 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | Around 45% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 9,904.5 | vs | 5,897.5 | Around 70% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 30,252 | vs | 20,891 | Around 45% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Much better T-Rex score | 3,361.56 | vs | 3,109.39 | Around 10% better T-Rex score | |||
| More memory | 6,144 MB | vs | 4,096 MB | 50% more memory | |||
| Much higher diablo III framerate | 225 fps | vs | 157.25 fps | Around 45% higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 26,947 | vs | 22,760 | Around 20% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 49.8 GPixel/s | vs | 20.13 GPixel/s | Around 2.5x higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,012 MHz | vs | 3,600 MHz | Around 40% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark score | 4,048 | vs | 3,377 | Around 20% better PassMark score | |||
| Much higher crysis 3 framerate | 33.4 fps | vs | 21.8 fps | Around 55% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 2,657.3 GFLOPS | vs | 1,932.7 GFLOPS | More than 35% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 993 MHz | vs | 719 MHz | Around 40% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More render output processors | 48 | vs | 32 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate | 71.9 fps | vs | 45.8 fps | More than 55% higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,253 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | Around 40% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher metro: last light framerate | 52.3 | vs | 30.5 | More than 70% higher metro: last light framerate | |||
| Better fire strike factor score | 59.95 | vs | 40.62 | Around 50% better fire strike factor score | |||
| Better T-Rex score | 4.16 frames/s | vs | 2.82 frames/s | More than 45% better T-Rex score | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 2,799 | vs | 1,775 | Around 60% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| |||||||
| More texture mapping units | 112 | vs | 80 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| Wider memory bus | 256 bit | vs | 192 bit | Around 35% wider memory bus | |||
Report a correction
