Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon R9 285
Aggregated performance score
R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5
17.25
+20.5%
GTX 680
2012
2048MB GDDR5
14.31
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 292 | 337 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 16.15 | 5.03 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (9 years old) | 22 March 2012 (12 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $499 |
| Current price | $85 (0.3x MSRP) | $156 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
R9 285 has 221% better value for money than GTX 680.
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 | 1792 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 1006 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1058 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 195 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 128.8 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 3,290 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 | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 10.0" (25.4 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | 2 GB | 2048 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 5.5 GB/s | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 192.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 21% 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%
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 21% 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%
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 13% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 50−55
+11.1%
| 45
−11.1%
|
| Full HD | 90−95
+18.4%
| 76
−18.4%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+12.5%
| 24
−12.5%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 17.25 | 14.31 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 22 March 2012 |
| Cost | $249 | $499 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 195 Watt |
The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 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.
