AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clear overall victory for the AMD Radeon 680M, with 2 benchmark wins against 0 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950. The most decisive margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD part scores 23,468 points versus the GTX 950’s 15,662 points. That represents a 49.8% advantage, meaning the 680M delivers nearly half again as much compute throughput in this particular workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial generational leap in raw parallel processing capability.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon 680M again comes out ahead, scoring 21,965 points against the GTX 950’s 16,734 points. The delta here is 31.3%, a smaller but still very significant gap. Vulkan is a low-level API that tends to expose architectural efficiency, and the data suggests the RDNA 2.0 implementation in the 680M is markedly more efficient at translating shader work into results than the older Maxwell 2.0 design in the GTX 950. While the OpenCL result may reflect driver optimization or compute-focused scheduling, the Vulkan result is more indicative of real-world gaming performance potential, and the 680M holds a strong edge there as well.

Looking at the broader database averages, the two cards sit in different tiers relative to all GPUs. The AMD Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15,270, placing it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (average score 15,290, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (average score 15,283, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (average score 15,199, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (average score 15,171, delta 0.7%). This positions the 680M essentially at parity with a discrete RTX 2060 or GTX 580, which is remarkable for an integrated graphics processor. The deltas are all within 0.7%, meaning the 680M is effectively trading blows with those much larger discrete cards.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 13,189, which places it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M6100 (average score 13,354, delta -1.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (average score 13,321, delta -1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (average score 13,300, delta -0.8%), and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (average score 13,075, delta 0.9%). The GTX 950 sits in a cluster of older or lower-tier discrete parts, and its average score is roughly 13% below that of the 680M. The percentile gap of 57 versus 53 confirms that the 680M is not just faster in specific tests; it is statistically better positioned across the entire database of recorded benchmarks.

The head-to-head delta of 49.8% in OpenCL is particularly striking because both cards feature the same number of shading units (768) and texture mapping units (48). The 680M achieves its advantage through a much higher clock speed and a more modern instruction pipeline. The GTX 950’s base clock is 1024 MHz with a boost of 1188 MHz, while the 680M runs at a base of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. That clock advantage alone would explain a significant portion of the performance gap, but the architectural improvements in RDNA 2.0 over Maxwell 2.0 amplify the effect further. The pixel rate of the 680M is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 38.02 GPixel/s for the GTX 950, and the texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s. These are direct reflections of the clock speed and execution efficiency differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M, with an average score of 15,270, compared to 13,189 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 680M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The 680M scores 23,468 points versus 15,662 for the GTX 950, which is a 49.8% advantage.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU relative to all GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M sits at the 57th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 sits at the 53rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has a boost clock of 1188 MHz.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs spans multiple generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 680M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, specifically the Rembrandt+ chip, and belongs to the Navi II IGP generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,100 million transistors packed into a 208 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The GTX 950, in contrast, uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, part of the GeForce 900 generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at the same foundry, TSMC, but contains only 2,940 million transistors across a 228 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.9 million per mm². The 680M fits more than four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller physical area, which is the primary enabler of its performance advantage.

The 680M includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the GTX 950. This allows the 680M to claim DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, whereas the GTX 950 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is otherwise identical. The 680M also supports FP16 computation at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 6.758 TFLOPS of half-precision throughput, while the GTX 950 has no recorded FP16 capability. For FP32, the 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS compared to 1.825 TFLOPS for the GTX 950. This near-doubling of single-precision throughput is consistent with the benchmark results.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divergence. The 680M uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent and its capacity is whatever the host system allocates. The GTX 950 has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a fixed 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. In practice, the 680M’s reliance on shared memory can be a bottleneck if the system memory is slow, but the database benchmarks show that in the recorded tests, the 680M still outperforms the GTX 950 by a wide margin. The GTX 950’s memory clock is 1653 MHz, which translates to 6.6 Gbps effective, but that dedicated bandwidth advantage does not overcome the 680M’s raw compute superiority.

The power envelope also reflects the architectural differences. The 680M is rated at 50 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GTX 950 is a dual-slot discrete card rated at 90 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested power supply. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The 680M achieves higher performance while consuming 40 W less power, which confirms the efficiency gains from the 6 nm process and modern RDNA design.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 6 nm for the AMD part versus 28 nm for the NVIDIA part. Transistor count is 13,100 million versus 2,940 million. Die size is 208 mm² versus 228 mm², meaning the 680M is smaller yet far more dense. The base clock is 2000 MHz versus 1024 MHz, and the boost clock is 2200 MHz versus 1188 MHz. The 680M has no fixed memory clock because it uses system shared memory, while the GTX 950 has a memory clock of 1653 MHz.

The memory configuration is entirely different: the 680M has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are equal at 768, and TMUs are equal at 48, but the ROPs are also equal at 32. The 680M adds 12 ray tracing cores, while the GTX 950 has none. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 38.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.379 TFLOPS versus 1.825 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.758 TFLOPS for the 680M, with no recorded value for the GTX 950.

The TDP is 50 W versus 90 W. The slot width is IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 6-pin. The suggested PSU is not specified for the 680M, while the GTX 950 requires 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 680M, while the GTX 950 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The 680M is 202 mm long, while the GTX 950 has no recorded dimensions. The production status is Active for the 680M and End-of-life for the GTX 950.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M is the clear winner in raw compute benchmarks, taking both recorded head-to-head tests. Its 49.8% OpenCL advantage and 31.3% Vulkan advantage make it the superior choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute or modern graphics APIs. The 680M also wins on efficiency, delivering more performance at 50 W versus 90 W, which makes it ideal for portable devices where power and thermal limits are strict. Its 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it a forward-looking feature set that the GTX 950 cannot match. For users considering an integrated solution for a thin-and-light laptop, the data shows that the 680M can outperform a mid-range discrete GPU from the previous decade.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, still holds some advantages that may matter in specific use cases. It has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a fixed 105.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is more predictable than the system dependent bandwidth of the 680M. In scenarios where the host system memory is slow or shared with the CPU, the GTX 950’s dedicated memory could provide more consistent frame pacing. The GTX 950 also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which offers more lanes than the 680M’s PCIe 4.0 x8, potentially reducing latency in certain data transfer patterns. Its dual-slot cooling solution and 6-pin power connector imply a larger physical footprint, but also a more robust thermal solution for sustained loads.

For gaming specifically, the Vulkan result suggests the 680M will hold a 31.3% advantage in titles that use that API. The OpenCL result indicates the 680M is also better for compute-heavy tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference. The GTX 950’s only real niche in the current database is as a low-power discrete card for legacy systems where the motherboard lacks an integrated GPU or where the user requires dedicated video outputs like DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.2. The 680M’s display outputs are portable device dependent, so it cannot drive a standard desktop monitor array without the host system providing the necessary ports.

In summary, the AMD Radeon 680M wins on performance, efficiency, modern features, and API support. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 wins on memory predictability, discrete form factor, and legacy connectivity. For any new system build, the 680M is the superior choice based on recorded data. For a user with an existing GTX 950, the upgrade path to a 680M would bring a 49.8% improvement in OpenCL and a 31.3% improvement in Vulkan, along with a reduction in power consumption from 90 W to 50 W. The GTX 950 remains functional but is firmly in the end-of-life category, while the 680M is active and represents the current generation of integrated graphics.