Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 based on its benchmarks.
See full details GeForce GTX 680 vs 1050 |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 680 vs 1050 among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 6.8 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680GPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Better PassMark score | 5,693 | vs | 4,443 | Around 30% better PassMark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | vs | 112.1 GB/s | More than 70% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher texture rate | 128.8 GTexel/s | vs | 58.2 GTexel/s | Around 2.2x higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 128 | vs | 40 | 88 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 3,090.4 GFLOPS | vs | 1,862 GFLOPS | More than 65% better floating-point performance | |||
| More shading units | 1,536 | vs | 640 | 896 more shading units | |||
| Better sky diver factor score | 381.6 | vs | 303.85 | More than 25% better sky diver factor score | |||
| Better video composition score | 72.95 frames/s | vs | 32.65 frames/s | Around 2.2x better video composition score | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,354 MHz | vs | 1,006 MHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,455 MHz | vs | 1,058 MHz | Around 40% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 7,008 MHz | vs | 6,008 MHz | More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 46.56 GPixel/s | vs | 32.2 GPixel/s | Around 45% higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,752 MHz | vs | 1,502 MHz | More than 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly lower TDP | 75W | vs | 195W | 2.6x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 680 vs 1050
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Battlefield 4
Bioshock Infinite
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| 1050 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs 960 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs MX150 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs RX 550 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs 970 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs RX 460 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 1050 vs RX 560 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS | |
| $280 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | ||
| 1060 vs RX 580 | ||
| | VS | |
| $280 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 960 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 970 vs R9 390 | ||
