NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 vs AMD Radeon R9 Nano

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

R9 Nano
21.90
+53.3%

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 53% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking233337
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money5.284.98
ArchitectureGCN 1.2 (2015−2016)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameFijiGK104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date10 September 2015 (8 years old)22 March 2012 (12 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $499
Current price$27 (0x MSRP)$156 (0.3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Nano has 6% 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 cores40961536
CUDA coresno data1536
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1006 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1058 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt195 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0128.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance8,192 gflops3,090.4 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 supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm10.0" (25.4 cm)
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinTwo 6-pin
SLI optionsno data+
Bridgeless CrossFire1no 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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2048 MB
Memory bus width4096 Bit256-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed500 MHz6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.2 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
Eyefinity+no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
HDCPno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
DisplayPort support+no data
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration+no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune+no data
TressFX1no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore+no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.2
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+no data
CUDAno 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 Nano 21.90
+53.3%
GTX 680 14.29

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 53% in our combined 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 Nano 8486
+53.2%
GTX 680 5538

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 53% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 Nano 43546
+46.6%
GTX 680 29702

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 47% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 Nano 17282
+69.2%
GTX 680 10217

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 69% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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 Nano 14362
+89.3%
GTX 680 7587

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 89% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 Nano 81374
+72.7%
GTX 680 47130

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 73% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

R9 Nano 402499
+62.8%
GTX 680 247306

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 63% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 Nano 1732
+79.7%
GTX 680 964

Radeon R9 Nano outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 80% 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:

900p65−70
+44.4%
45
−44.4%
Full HD91
+19.7%
76
−19.7%
4K45
+87.5%
24
−87.5%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+59.1%
21−24
−59.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+46.9%
45−50
−46.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+54.1%
35−40
−54.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+59.1%
21−24
−59.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+56.8%
35−40
−56.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+51.3%
35−40
−51.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+48%
50−55
−48%
Hitman 3 60−65
+64.1%
35−40
−64.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+46.9%
45−50
−46.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+54.1%
35−40
−54.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+59.1%
21−24
−59.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+56.8%
35−40
−56.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+51.3%
35−40
−51.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+48%
50−55
−48%
Hitman 3 60−65
+64.1%
35−40
−64.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+63.6%
21−24
−63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+14.3%
42
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+46.9%
45−50
−46.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+59.1%
21−24
−59.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+56.8%
35−40
−56.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+51.3%
35−40
−51.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+48%
50−55
−48%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+114%
22
−114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Hitman 3 35−40
+63.6%
21−24
−63.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+45%
20−22
−45%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+60%
14−16
−60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+63.3%
30−33
−63.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+60.9%
21−24
−60.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+61.5%
24−27
−61.5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+60.7%
27−30
−60.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Hitman 3 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+119%
16
−119%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+63.2%
18−20
−63.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

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

900p resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 44.4% faster than GTX 680

1080p resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 19.7% faster than GTX 680

4K resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 87.5% faster than GTX 680

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Nano is 150% faster than the GTX 680.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 Nano surpassed GTX 680 in all 68 of our tests.

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 21.90 14.29
Recency 10 September 2015 22 March 2012
Cost $649 $499
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2048 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 195 Watt

The Radeon R9 Nano 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.

User ratings

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


AMD Radeon R9 Nano
Radeon R9 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


4.3 87 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R9 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 551 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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