GeForce GTX 690 vs 1080
Aggregated performance score
1080 outperforms 690 by 178% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 94 | 330 |
| Place by popularity | 69 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 26.36 | 1.94 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Pascal GP104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 May 2016 (7 years old) | 3 May 2012 (11 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $999 |
| Current price | $241 (0.4x MSRP) | $411 (0.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1080 has 1259% better value for money than GTX 690.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | 2560 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1019 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 234 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | 2x 3,130 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | 11.0" (27.9 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 8-pin | Two 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | + |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 6008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 384 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 |
| Multi monitor support | + | 4 displays |
| HDMI | + | Yes (via dongle) |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
| 3D Gaming | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| 3D Vision Live | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
1080 outperforms 690 by 178% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
1080 outperforms 690 by 178% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1080 outperforms 690 by 63% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
1080 outperforms 690 by 181% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
1080 outperforms 690 by 326% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
1080 outperforms 690 by 320% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 128
+184%
| 45−50
−184%
|
| 1440p | 77
+185%
| 27−30
−185%
|
| 4K | 58
+222%
| 18−21
−222%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 92
+207%
|
30−33
−207%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+202%
|
55−60
−202%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 134
+198%
|
45−50
−198%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+195%
|
40−45
−195%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 111
+217%
|
35−40
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140
+180%
|
50−55
−180%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+184%
|
45−50
−184%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 96
+220%
|
30−33
−220%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 108
+209%
|
35−40
−209%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 83
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 142
+184%
|
50−55
−184%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 113
+183%
|
40−45
−183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 113
+183%
|
40−45
−183%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 108
+209%
|
35−40
−209%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 137
+204%
|
45−50
−204%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+184%
|
45−50
−184%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 98
+180%
|
35−40
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 63
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 123
+208%
|
40−45
−208%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 98
+180%
|
35−40
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+180%
|
40−45
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 74
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Hitman 3 | 75−80
+213%
|
24−27
−213%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 64
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+180%
|
35−40
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 82
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+210%
|
30−33
−210%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+222%
|
18−20
−222%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 47
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
This is how GTX 1080 and GTX 690 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 1080 is 184% faster than GTX 690
1440p resolution:
- GTX 1080 is 185% faster than GTX 690
4K resolution:
- GTX 1080 is 222% faster than GTX 690
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 40.09 | 14.43 |
| Recency | 6 May 2016 | 3 May 2012 |
| Cost | $599 | $999 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 300 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 690 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
