ATI Radeon HD 3850 vs GeForce GTX 680

Place in the ranking	361	1104
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.03	0.04
Power efficiency	5.08	0.93
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	GK104	RV670
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	19 November 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680 has 7475% better value for money than ATI HD 3850.

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	320
Core clock speed	1006 MHz	668 MHz
Boost clock speed	1058 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	666 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	135.4	10.69
Floating-point processing power	3.25 TFLOPS	0.4275 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	16

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	254 mm	208 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 6-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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256-bit GDDR5	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	830 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	53.12 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.2	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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 680 14.45
+1317%

ATI HD 3850 1.02

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.

GTX 680 5567
+1320%

ATI HD 3850 392

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 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Full HD	74 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
4K	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.74	35.80
4K	21.70	179.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24
+2100%

1−2

−2100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	94 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45
+1900%

2−3

−1900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Hitman 3	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +1383%	6−7 −1383%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
+2300%

1−2

−2300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12	0−1
Hitman 3	10−11	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1320%	5−6 −1320%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

0−1

This is how GTX 680 and ATI HD 3850 compete in popular games:

GTX 680 is 1400% faster in 900p
GTX 680 is 1380% faster in 1080p
GTX 680 is 2200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.45	1.02
Recency	22 March 2012	19 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 680 has a 1316.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 3850, on the other hand, has 160% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.

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