GeForce GTX 690 vs GeForce GTX 970M

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 970M

#17

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

152%

#19

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

138%

#20

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

138%

#24

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

125%

#25

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

124%

#27

GeForce GTX 970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#35

GeForce GTX 960M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

95%

#37

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 970M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.1% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (3 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 690.

Insight	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+50%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	Standard Size (279mm)	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 970M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 690 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 970M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 690 and GeForce GTX 970M

GeForce GTX 690

The GeForce GTX 690 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 3 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 915 MHz to 1019 MHz. It has 3072 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,536 points. Launch price was $999.

GeForce GTX 970M

The GeForce GTX 970M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 81W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,705 points. Launch price was $2,560.89.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 690 scores 5,536 and the GeForce GTX 970M reaches 5,705 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 690 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 3,072 (GeForce GTX 690) vs 1,280 (GeForce GTX 970M). Raw compute: 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 690) vs 2.657 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970M). Boost clocks: 1019 MHz vs 1038 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
G3D Mark Score	5,536	5,705+3%
Architecture	Kepler	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	3072 ×2+140%	1280
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.13 TFLOPS ×2+18%	2.657 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1019 MHz	1038 MHz+2%
ROPs	32 ×2	48+50%
TMUs	128 ×2+60%	80
L1 Cache	128 KB	480 KB+275%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1.5 MB+200%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 690 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 970M has 3 GB. The GeForce GTX 970M offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 192.2 GB/s x2 (GeForce GTX 690) vs 120 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970M) — a 60.2% advantage for the GeForce GTX 690. Bus width: 256-bit x2 vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce GTX 690) vs 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 970M) — the GeForce GTX 970M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	3 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	192.2 GB/s x2+60%	120 GB/s
Bus Width	256-bit x2+33%	192-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1.5 MB+200%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_0 (GeForce GTX 690) vs 12_1 (GeForce GTX 970M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
DirectX	12_0	12_1
Max Displays	4	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st Gen (GeForce GTX 690) vs NVENC 5th Gen (GeForce GTX 970M). Decoder: VP5 vs NVDEC 2nd Gen.

Feature	GeForce GTX 690	GeForce GTX 970M
Encoder	NVENC 1st Gen	NVENC 5th Gen
Decoder	VP5	NVDEC 2nd Gen

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 690 draws 300W versus the GeForce GTX 970M's 81W — a 115% difference. The GeForce GTX 970M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (GeForce GTX 690) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 970M). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 279mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.