GeForce GTX 680M vs Radeon R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with GeForce GTX 680M, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
23.10
+177%

R9 390 outperforms GTX 680M by a whopping 177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking225480
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.563.89
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGrenadaN13E-GTX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)4 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $310.50

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 390 has 197% better value for money than GTX 680M.

Detailed specifications

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 cores25601344
CUDA coresno data1344
Core clock speedno data720 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate160.084.90
Floating-point performance5.12 gflops2.038 gflops

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinNone
SLI options-+
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s115.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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 390 23.10
+177%
GTX 680M 8.33

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.

R9 390 8914
+177%
GTX 680M 3216

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.

R9 390 12730
+214%
GTX 680M 4049

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:

900p180−190
+169%
67
−169%
Full HD180−190
+173%
66
−173%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how R9 390 and GTX 680M compete in popular games:

  • R9 390 is 169% faster in 900p
  • R9 390 is 173% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.10 8.33
Recency 18 June 2015 4 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 100 Watt

R9 390 has a 177.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.

GTX 680M, on the other hand, has 175% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 390
Radeon R9 390
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M
GeForce GTX 680M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 551 vote

Rate Radeon R9 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 45 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.