AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M and AMD Radeon HD 6950 are two end-of-life graphics solutions from different eras, targeting different physical form factors. The GTX 680M is a mobile MXM module built on a newer 28 nm process, while the HD 6950 is a dual-slot desktop card on 40 nm. The recorded data shows the GTX 680M holds a significant lead in the one available cross-benchmark, but the HD 6950 counters with a wider memory bus and higher raw fill rates. This analysis draws exclusively on the database measurements to determine which part suits which use case.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M as the stronger performer in compute workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 680M scores 9230 against the HD 6950's 6210, a 48.6% advantage. This is a decisive margin, not a marginal one. The GTX 680M also carries a higher average benchmark score of 7023 across its recorded tests, compared to 6210 for the HD 6950. If the priority is raw compute throughput in a portable package, the GTX 680M is the clear pick.

The AMD Radeon HD 6950 is not without merit, but its case rests on different grounds. It offers 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 115.2 GB/s on the GTX 680M, and its pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s tops the NVIDIA part's 21.22 GPixel/s. These are meaningful for certain rendering tasks, but the sole head-to-head benchmark does not reflect a win for AMD. The HD 6950 sits at the 36th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 680M sits at the 39th, confirming the NVIDIA part is the better overall performer in the database.

For a laptop or compact system, the GTX 680M is the only viable option of the two, as the HD 6950 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 550 W suggested PSU. For a desktop build where power and space are less constrained, the HD 6950 still offers competitive compute for its era, but the data shows it trails the GTX 680M in the one direct comparison. The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 680M wins on performance, while the HD 6950 is a legacy desktop part with specific bandwidth advantages that do not translate into a benchmark victory.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon HD 6950 uses the Cayman chip with the older TeraScale 3 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 40 nm process. It contains 2,640 million transistors across a larger 389 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 6.8M per mm².

The Kepler architecture in the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The TeraScale 3 architecture in the HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support recorded in the database. This makes the GTX 680M more future-proof for API compatibility, particularly for Vulkan applications.

Shading unit counts are similar, with the HD 6950 holding a slight edge at 1408 versus 1344 on the GTX 680M. However, the GTX 680M has more texture mapping units at 112 versus 88, while both have 32 ROPs. The GTX 680M also includes a boost clock of 758 MHz over a base of 719 MHz, a feature the HD 6950 lacks entirely, as it has no base or boost clock listed.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The GTX 680M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, running at 3.6 Gbps effective with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 6950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256 bit bus, but runs at 5 Gbps effective, giving it 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part wins on bandwidth despite having half the capacity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9230, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210. This gives the GTX 680M a 48.6% lead, a substantial gap that indicates the Kepler architecture's compute efficiency outpaces the older TeraScale 3 design.

This result is consistent with the overall average benchmark scores. The GTX 680M averages 7023 across all its recorded tests, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4815 in addition to the OpenCL result. The HD 6950 only has the single OpenCL score of 6210, so its average is identical to that one result.

The GTX 680M also sits higher in the percentile ranking, at the 39th percentile versus the 36th percentile for the HD 6950. While both are below the median, the NVIDIA part is clearly ahead in the recorded measurements. The nearest rivals for the GTX 680M include the NVIDIA T600 at 7035 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 at 6975 (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 (1.1% behind). The HD 6950's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W600 at 6223 (0.2% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (1.1% ahead), showing it clusters with much lower-performing parts.

In terms of theoretical rates, the HD 6950 does win on pixel rate at 25.60 GPixel/s versus 21.22 GPixel/s, and on FP32 compute at 2.253 TFLOPS versus 2.038 TFLOPS. The GTX 680M counters with a texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s. These raw numbers do not translate into a benchmark win for AMD, suggesting the GTX 680M's architecture extracts more real-world performance from its resources.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7023, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 has an average of 6210.

Q: How does the GTX 680M compare to the HD 6950 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9230 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 48.6% higher than the HD 6950's score of 6210.

Q: Does the HD 6950 have any advantages in raw specifications?

A: Yes, the HD 6950 has higher memory bandwidth at 160.0 GB/s, a higher pixel rate at 25.60 GPixel/s, and higher FP32 compute at 2.253 TFLOPS compared to the GTX 680M.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 6950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W and uses no external power connectors, while the HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M wins decisively in the compute benchmark arena. Its 48.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, such as OpenCL acceleration in productivity applications. It also supports Vulkan, which the HD 6950 lacks, making it the better option for any modern workload that leverages Vulkan compute. The GTX 680M's higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking (39th versus 36th) reinforce its position as the stronger all-around performer.

The GTX 680M also wins on physical practicality. As an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, it fits into laptops and compact systems. The HD 6950 is a dual-slot desktop card, 286 mm long, that demands a 550 W PSU and 2x 6-pin connectors. For mobile use, there is no contest.

The AMD Radeon HD 6950 wins on memory bandwidth and fill rates. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 115.2 GB/s on the GTX 680M gives it an edge in bandwidth-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution texture streaming. Its 25.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 2.253 TFLOPS FP32 output exceed the GTX 680M's 21.22 GPixel/s and 2.038 TFLOPS. These advantages suggest the HD 6950 could handle certain rasterization-heavy tasks better, though the database does not contain a benchmark that confirms this in practice.

For desktop builders with space and power to spare, the HD 6950 remains a functional legacy part. It supports DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4, and its 2 GB memory capacity is sufficient for older titles. However, the data shows the GTX 680M is the faster GPU overall, and its API support makes it the more versatile choice for modern software.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key specification differences between the two GPUs, using only the fields where they differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M | AMD Radeon HD 6950 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 3 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,640 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 389 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 6.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 719 MHz | None |

| Boost Clock | 758 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective | 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1344 | 1408 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 112 | 88 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.22 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 84.90 GTexel/s | 70.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 2.038 TFLOPS | 2.253 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 286 mm length, 126 mm height, 42 mm width |

| Release Date | 2012-06-03 | 2010-12-13 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Evergreen |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Southern Islands |

| Launch MSRP | None | 299 USD |

The GTX 680M is built on a smaller, denser process node, while the HD 6950 has a larger die with more shading units and higher clocks. The GTX 680M offers more memory capacity and texture units, while the HD 6950 provides higher bandwidth, pixel rate, and FP32 compute. These differences define their respective strengths and weaknesses in the database measurements.