NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 0 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 18% higher core clock speed: 850 MHz vs 720 MHz
• Around 14% higher boost clock speed: 863 MHz vs 758 MHz
• Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 11% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3188 vs 1263
• Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3275 vs 2409
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 vs 3111
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3188 vs 1263
• Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3275 vs 2409
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 vs 3111

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M

• Around 46% higher texture fill rate: 80.6 billion / sec vs 55.23 GTexel / s
• Around 75% higher pipelines: 1344 vs 768
• Around 54% better floating-point performance: 2,038 gflops vs 1,326 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 62% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3239 vs 1998
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 343 vs 289
• Around 29% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9345 vs 7244
• 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 28.081 vs 8.832
• Around 69% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 879.575 vs 520.747
• 3.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.823 vs 0.731
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 40.155 vs 19.952
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.75 vs 43.535

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1998 3239
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	289 343
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	7244 9345
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.832 28.081
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	520.747 879.575
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.731 2.823
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.952 40.155
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	43.535 99.75
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3188 1263
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3275 2409
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3111
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3188 1263
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3275 2409
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3111

Compare specifications (specs)