AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark results exactly one win apiece, but the margins tell very different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN scores 24,873 against the AMD Radeon 680M’s 23,468, a 5.6% advantage for the older card. That is a modest lead, and it places the GTX TITAN within striking distance of the 680M in raw compute workloads that favor its massive 2,688 shading units.

The reverse matchup is far more decisive. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon 680M posts 21,965 versus the GTX TITAN’s 10,027, a 119.1% victory — more than double the score. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational gap in API efficiency and modern driver support. The 680M’s lead in Vulkan completely overshadows the GTX TITAN’s OpenCL edge, and it reflects how the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture handles modern graphics APIs.

Looking at aggregate performance, the AMD Radeon 680M carries an average benchmark score of 15,270 across all tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN averages 14,373. That gives the 680M roughly a 6.2% overall lead, though both cards sit near the same percentile tier: the 680M ranks in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, and the GTX TITAN sits at the 56th percentile. The head-to-head deltas align with these averages — the GTX TITAN’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 580 (average 15,283, delta -0.1%) and the RTX 2060 (average 15,290, delta -0.1%), while the 680M’s nearest rivals include the Radeon RX 7600 (average 15,171, delta 0.7%) and the RTX 3050 OEM (average 15,199, delta 0.5%). In practical terms, both chips occupy the same performance neighborhood, but they get there through entirely different means.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is vast, spanning nearly a decade of GPU design philosophy. The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, by contrast, uses the GK110 chip on Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors across a much larger 561 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6M per mm². The 680M achieves more than five times the transistor density of the GTX TITAN, a direct consequence of the process node advantage.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The 680M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, while the GTX TITAN operates at 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The AMD part’s clocks are more than double those of the NVIDIA card, compensating for its smaller shader count. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, along with 12 dedicated ray tracing cores — a feature the GTX TITAN lacks entirely. The GTX TITAN counters with 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, but has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. This is a classic trade-off: many slow cores versus fewer fast ones.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The 680M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host laptop’s RAM. The GTX TITAN has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card’s dedicated memory is a clear advantage in capacity and bandwidth, but the 680M’s shared memory model allows for flexible allocation that can benefit integrated designs.

The feature set also reflects their eras. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The 680M’s newer API support, particularly for ray tracing and mesh shaders in DX12 Ultimate, explains its Vulkan dominance. The GTX TITAN’s 11_0 feature level limits its modern API performance, even if its raw compute throughput remains respectable.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M wins decisively in modern graphics API workloads. Its 119.1% Vulkan lead over the GTX TITAN is the single largest margin in any comparison, and it suggests the 680M is far better suited for contemporary games and applications that leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The 680M also has the advantage in ray tracing — its 12 dedicated RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the GTX TITAN simply cannot perform. For users running recent titles with ray-traced effects, the 680M is the only option of the two. Its 6 nm process and 50 W TDP also make it far more power-efficient, which matters for portable devices and compact systems.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN wins in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 4.709 TFLOPS of FP32 performance exceeds the 680M’s 3.379 TFLOPS by roughly 39%, and its 288.4 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth dwarfs the 680M’s system-dependent throughput. The GTX TITAN’s 250 W TDP and dual-slot cooler reflect its desktop-class design, and its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory allows for larger textures and datasets than a shared-memory IGP can handle. In OpenCL workloads — which often favor raw shader count over API efficiency — the GTX TITAN’s 5.6% lead demonstrates its staying power in compute tasks. The card also has higher pixel rate (49.06 GPixel/s vs. 70.40 GPixel/s is actually the AMD win) and texture rate (196.2 GTexel/s vs. 105.6 GTexel/s is the NVIDIA win), so the texture throughput advantage belongs to NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M averages 15,270 across all benchmarks, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN averages 14,373, giving the 680M a lead of roughly 6.2%.

Q: How do they compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M scores 21,965 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the GTX TITAN’s 10,027, a 119.1% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the GTX TITAN support ray tracing?

A: No, the GTX TITAN has no ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon 680M includes 12 dedicated RT cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX TITAN has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 680M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M runs at 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, compared to the GTX TITAN’s 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost.

Q: How do their process nodes compare?

A: The 680M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX TITAN uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For modern gaming and applications that use Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the AMD Radeon 680M is the superior choice. Its 119.1% Vulkan lead is not just a margin — it is a fundamental incompatibility between the GTX TITAN’s aging Kepler architecture and contemporary graphics APIs. The 680M’s ray tracing cores, 12_2 feature level, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it future-proof in ways the GTX TITAN cannot match. Its 57th percentile ranking and higher average score (15,270 vs. 14,373) reinforce this.

For legacy compute tasks and raw FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN retains value. Its 4.709 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 288.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth are substantial, and its 5.6% OpenCL win shows it can still hold its own in traditional compute workloads. The GTX TITAN’s 6 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory is also a practical advantage for large datasets that would strain a shared-memory IGP. However, its 28 nm process, 250 W TDP, and end-of-life status make it a poor choice for new systems.

Users should pick the AMD Radeon 680M for any modern gaming, ray tracing, or API-forward workload. Users with legacy compute needs or who require dedicated memory bandwidth should consider the GTX TITAN, but its age and lack of modern features make it a niche option. The 680M is the more balanced, future-ready product.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 680M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Rembrandt+ | GK110 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 836 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 876 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 2688 |

| TMUs | 48 | 224 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 49.06 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 196.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.379 TFLOPS | 4.709 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 50 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-02 | 2013-02-18 |

| Predecessor | Vega II IGP | GeForce 600 |

| Successor | Navi III IGP | GeForce 900 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 999 USD |