FirePro W9000 vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with FirePro W9000, including specs and performance data.
W9000 outperforms GTX 680 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 414 | 394 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.70 | 0.40 |
| Power efficiency | 5.29 | 4.12 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $3,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 680 has 575% better value for money than FirePro W9000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 768 KB |
Form factor & 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 256 mm | 279 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 264 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 45
+0%
| 45−50
+0%
|
| Full HD | 75
−6.7%
| 80−85
+6.7%
|
| 4K | 25
−8%
| 27−30
+8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65
+651%
| 49.99
−651%
|
| 4K | 19.96
+642%
| 148.11
−642%
|
- GTX 680 has 651% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 680 has 642% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−5.3%
|
80−85
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−1.7%
|
60−65
+1.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−5.3%
|
80−85
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−3.4%
|
120−130
+3.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−1.7%
|
60−65
+1.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−5.3%
|
80−85
+5.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 224
−7.1%
|
240−250
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−7.1%
|
60−65
+7.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−3.4%
|
120−130
+3.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−1.7%
|
60−65
+1.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−3.4%
|
120−130
+3.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−5.7%
|
130−140
+5.7%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−5.6%
|
150−160
+5.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−8.1%
|
80−85
+8.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
This is how GTX 680 and FirePro W9000 compete in popular games:
- A tie in 900p
- FirePro W9000 is 7% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W9000 is 8% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.42 | 14.69 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 14 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 350 Watt |
GTX 680 has 79.5% lower power consumption.
FirePro W9000, on the other hand, has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 680 and FirePro W9000.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop graphics card while FirePro W9000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
