Radeon Pro W5700X vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with Radeon Pro W5700X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700X outperforms GTX 680 by a whopping 171% 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 | 420 | 151 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.74 | 13.33 |
| Power efficiency | 5.30 | 13.63 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (14 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5700X has 386% better value for money than GTX 680.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 205 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 293.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 9.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 256 mm | 305 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI, 4x Thunderbolt |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| 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.
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.
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
−167%
| 120−130
+167%
|
| Full HD | 75
−167%
| 200−210
+167%
|
| 4K | 25
−160%
| 65−70
+160%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65
−33.2%
| 5.00
+33.2%
|
| 4K | 19.96
−29.9%
| 15.37
+29.9%
|
- Pro W5700X has 33% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro W5700X has 30% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−163%
|
200−210
+163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−163%
|
200−210
+163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−150%
|
110−120
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−169%
|
210−220
+169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−162%
|
110−120
+162%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−160%
|
130−140
+160%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−159%
|
300−310
+159%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−163%
|
200−210
+163%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 224
−168%
|
600−650
+168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−170%
|
240−250
+170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−150%
|
110−120
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−169%
|
210−220
+169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−162%
|
110−120
+162%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−168%
|
150−160
+168%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−160%
|
130−140
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
−162%
|
110−120
+162%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−159%
|
300−310
+159%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−168%
|
75−80
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−170%
|
240−250
+170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−150%
|
110−120
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−160%
|
130−140
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−150%
|
55−60
+150%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−159%
|
300−310
+159%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
−169%
|
210−220
+169%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−165%
|
270−280
+165%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−144%
|
300−310
+144%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−146%
|
350−400
+146%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−163%
|
100−105
+163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−167%
|
80−85
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−158%
|
85−90
+158%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−150%
|
50−55
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−167%
|
80−85
+167%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−170%
|
200−210
+170%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−165%
|
130−140
+165%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
This is how GTX 680 and Pro W5700X compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700X is 167% faster in 900p
- Pro W5700X is 167% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5700X is 160% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.57 | 36.76 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 11 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 205 Watt |
GTX 680 has 5% lower power consumption.
Pro W5700X, on the other hand, has a 171% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5700X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W5700X 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.
