GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon R9 270X
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 364 | 338 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 4.47 | 5.03 |
Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
GPU code name | Curacao XT | GK104 |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Design | reference | no data |
Release date | 8 October 2013 (10 years old) | 22 March 2012 (12 years old) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $499 |
Current price | $136 (0.7x MSRP) | $156 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 680 has 13% better value for money than R9 270X.
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 cores | 1280 | 1536 |
CUDA cores | no data | 1536 |
Core clock speed | no data | 1006 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1058 MHz |
Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 3,540 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 195 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 128.8 billion/sec |
Floating-point performance | 2,688 gflops | 3,090.4 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 support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 10.0" (25.4 cm) |
Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | Two 6-pin |
SLI options | no data | + |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2048 MB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
Memory clock speed | no data | 6000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 192.2 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
Eyefinity | + | no data |
HDMI | + | + |
HDCP | no data | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
DisplayPort support | + | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
AppAcceleration | + | no data |
CrossFire | 1 | no data |
Enduro | - | no data |
FreeSync | 1 | no data |
HD3D | + | no data |
LiquidVR | 1 | no data |
PowerTune | - | no data |
TressFX | 1 | no data |
TrueAudio | + | no data |
ZeroCore | - | no data |
UVD | + | no data |
DDMA audio | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
Mantle | - | no data |
CUDA | no data | + |
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.
GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 13% based on our aggregated 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%
GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 13% in Passmark.
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%
GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 16% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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%
GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 31% 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:
900p | 35−40
−28.6%
| 45
+28.6%
|
Full HD | 65−70
−16.9%
| 76
+16.9%
|
4K | 21−24
−14.3%
| 24
+14.3%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−14%
|
45−50
+14%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−15.6%
|
35−40
+15.6%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−14%
|
45−50
+14%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−15.6%
|
35−40
+15.6%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
Metro Exodus | 18−20
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−61.5%
|
42
+61.5%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−14%
|
45−50
+14%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−15.6%
|
35−40
+15.6%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+18.2%
|
22
−18.2%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
Hitman 3 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Metro Exodus | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16
+45.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
This is how R9 270X and GTX 680 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- GTX 680 is 28.6% faster than R9 270X
1080p resolution:
- GTX 680 is 16.9% faster than R9 270X
4K resolution:
- GTX 680 is 14.3% faster than R9 270X
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 270X is 18.2% faster than the GTX 680.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680 is 61.5% faster than the R9 270X.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 270X is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- GTX 680 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 12.62 | 14.31 |
Recency | 8 October 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
Cost | $199 | $499 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2048 MB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 195 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.