Radeon Pro 580X vs GeForce GTX 680

Place in the ranking	362	288
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.06	no data
Power efficiency	5.14	9.02
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GK104	Polaris 20
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	18 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2304
Core clock speed	1006 MHz	1100 MHz
Boost clock speed	1058 MHz	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	135.4	172.8
Floating-point processing power	3.25 TFLOPS	5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128	144

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 3.0 x16
Length	254 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
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	8 GB
Memory bus width	256-bit GDDR5	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1695 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	217.0 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	No outputs
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)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
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 14.52

Pro 580X 19.62
+35.1%

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 5581

Pro 580X 7540
+35.1%

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.

GTX 680 18384

Pro 580X 35780
+94.6%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GTX 680 17522

Pro 580X 38868
+122%

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 −33.3%	60−65 +33.3%
Full HD	75 −33.3%	100−110 +33.3%
4K	26 −34.6%	35−40 +34.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.65	no data
4K	19.19	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −27.7%	60−65 +27.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −27.1%	75−80 +27.1%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −31.6%	50−55 +31.6%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −25%	45−50 +25%
Valorant	55−60 −29.3%	75−80 +29.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −27.7%	60−65 +27.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Dota 2	37 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −29.6%	70−75 +29.6%
Fortnite	80−85 −23.5%	100−105 +23.5%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −27.1%	75−80 +27.1%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −31.6%	50−55 +31.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 −33.9%	75−80 +33.9%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −33.3%	140−150 +33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −25%	45−50 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 −27.7%	60−65 +27.7%
Valorant	55−60 −29.3%	75−80 +29.3%
World of Tanks	224 −33.9%	300−310 +33.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −27.7%	60−65 +27.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Dota 2	50−55 −34.6%	70−75 +34.6%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −29.6%	70−75 +29.6%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −27.1%	75−80 +27.1%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −31.6%	50−55 +31.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −33.3%	140−150 +33.3%
Valorant	55−60 −29.3%	75−80 +29.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −22.7%	27−30 +22.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −28%	160−170 +28%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
World of Tanks	100−110 −27.5%	130−140 +27.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −29%	40−45 +29%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −25%	45−50 +25%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −29%	40−45 +29%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Valorant	35−40 −25%	45−50 +25%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Dota 2	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −27.9%	55−60 +27.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −33.3%	24−27 +33.3%
Fortnite	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −35%	27−30 +35%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Valorant	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%

This is how GTX 680 and Pro 580X compete in popular games:

Pro 580X is 33% faster in 900p
Pro 580X is 33% faster in 1080p
Pro 580X is 35% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.52	19.62
Recency	22 March 2012	18 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	150 Watt

Pro 580X has a 35.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 580X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 580X is a mobile workstation one.

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