GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon R9 270X

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.

R9 270X 12.62

GTX 680 14.31
+13.4%

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%

R9 270X 4889

GTX 680 5541
+13.3%

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%

R9 270X 6560

GTX 680 7587
+15.7%

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%

R9 270X 735

GTX 680 964
+31.2%

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