Radeon Pro W6800 vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 with Radeon Pro W6800, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800 outperforms GTX 690 by a whopping 267% 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 | 77 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.29 | 10.66 |
| Power efficiency | 3.37 | 14.85 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (14 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $2,249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W6800 has 726% better value for money than GTX 690.
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 | 3072 ×2 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 2075 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 2320 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 130.4 ×2 | 556.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 | 17.82 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 96 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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 | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×2 | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s ×2 | 512.0 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | 6x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 35−40
−291%
| 137
+291%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−287%
| 116
+287%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−300%
| 84
+300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 28.54
−73.9%
| 16.42
+73.9%
|
| 1440p | 33.30
−71.8%
| 19.39
+71.8%
|
| 4K | 47.57
−77.7%
| 26.77
+77.7%
|
- Pro W6800 has 74% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro W6800 has 72% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro W6800 has 78% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
This is how GTX 690 and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is 291% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800 is 287% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 300% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.12 | 48.20 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 250 Watt |
Pro W6800 has a 267% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 690 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 690 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W6800 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.
