680 vs 960

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

GTX 960
15.64
+9.4%

960 outperforms 680 by 9% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking315337
Place by popularity53not in top-100
Value for money2.124.98
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM206GK104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date22 January 2015 (9 years old)22 March 2012 (12 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $499
Current price$440 (2.2x MSRP)$156 (0.3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680 has 135% better value for money than GTX 960.

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 cores10241536
CUDA cores10241536
Core clock speed1127 MHz1006 MHz
Boost clock speed1178 MHz1058 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt195 Watt
Texture fill rate72 billion/sec128.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance2,413 gflops3,090.4 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 supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length9.5" (24.1 cm)10.0" (25.4 cm)
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinsTwo 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2048 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s192.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displays4 displays
HDMI++
HDCP++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
G-SYNC support+no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalInternal

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.44.2
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+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.

GTX 960 15.64
+9.4%
GTX 680 14.29

960 outperforms 680 by 9% in our combined 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%

GTX 960 6064
+9.5%
GTX 680 5538

960 outperforms 680 by 9% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 960 30751
+3.5%
GTX 680 29702

960 outperforms 680 by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 960 10768
+5.4%
GTX 680 10217

960 outperforms 680 by 5% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

GTX 960 7916
+4.3%
GTX 680 7587

960 outperforms 680 by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 960 49918
+5.9%
GTX 680 47130

960 outperforms 680 by 6% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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%

GTX 960 18093
GTX 680 18429
+1.9%

680 outperforms 960 by 2% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 960 310860
+25.7%
GTX 680 247306

960 outperforms 680 by 26% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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%

GTX 960 20002
+14.5%
GTX 680 17476

960 outperforms 680 by 14% 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%

GTX 960 17784
+34.2%
GTX 680 13248

960 outperforms 680 by 34% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 960 48
GTX 680 54
+12.5%

680 outperforms 960 by 13% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

GTX 960 866
GTX 680 964
+11.3%

680 outperforms 960 by 11% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.

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:

900p45−50
+0%
45
+0%
Full HD65
−16.9%
76
+16.9%
4K29
+20.8%
24
−20.8%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+8.2%
45−50
−8.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+10.8%
35−40
−10.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+10.3%
35−40
−10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+10%
50−55
−10%
Hitman 3 40−45
+10.3%
35−40
−10.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+8.2%
45−50
−8.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+10.8%
35−40
−10.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+10.3%
35−40
−10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+10%
50−55
−10%
Hitman 3 40−45
+10.3%
35−40
−10.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+19%
42
−19%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+8.2%
45−50
−8.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+10.8%
35−40
−10.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+10.3%
35−40
−10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+10%
50−55
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+27.3%
22
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Hitman 3 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+13%
21−24
−13%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+11.5%
24−27
−11.5%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Hitman 3 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−6.7%
16
+6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+15.8%
18−20
−15.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how GTX 960 and GTX 680 compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 0% faster than GTX 960

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 16.9% faster than GTX 960

4K resolution:

  • GTX 960 is 20.8% faster than GTX 680

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960 is 50% faster than the GTX 680.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680 is 6.7% faster than the GTX 960.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
  • GTX 680 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 15.64 14.29
Recency 22 January 2015 22 March 2012
Cost $199 $499
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2048 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 195 Watt

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 960 and GeForce GTX 680. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3257 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 551 vote

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.