GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 760 vs 680

Gaming

Real world tests using the latest 3D games
GeForce GTX 760
8.0
GeForce GTX 680
8.4
crysis: warhead (2013), battlefield 3 (2013), Civilization 5 and Far Cry 3

Benchmarks

Synthetic tests to measure overall performance
GeForce GTX 760
7.6
GeForce GTX 680
8.0
Passmark, 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill, 3DMark 11 Graphics and 2 more

Compute Performance

General computing tests executed on the GPU
GeForce GTX 760
7.1
GeForce GTX 680
8.0
SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4, Civilization 5 Texture Decomposition (2013) and 2 more

Noise and Power

How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load
GeForce GTX 760
8.2
GeForce GTX 680
8.2
TDP, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level, Idle Power Consumption and 1 more

GPUBoss Score

Gaming, Benchmarks, Compute Performance and Noise and Power
GeForce GTX 760
7.5
GeForce GTX 680
8.0

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680  based on its gaming and compute performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

Front view of GeForce GTX 760
Front view of GeForce GTX 680

Nvidia GeForce GTX 680

GPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of GeForce GTX 760

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

Report a correction
Higher crysis 3 framerate 58.7 fps vs 36.8 fps Around 60% higher crysis 3 framerate
Slightly more energy-efficient load power consumption 336W vs 356W More than 5% more energy-efficient load power consumption
Quieter load noise level 50 dB vs 51.9 dB Around 5% quieter load noise level
Slightly more energy-efficient idle power consumption 108W vs 112W Around 5% more energy-efficient idle power consumption
Slightly lower TDP 170W vs 195W Around 15% lower TDP
Front view of GeForce GTX 680

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680

Report a correction
Better 3DMark vantage texture fill score 106.1 vs 82.8 Around 30% better 3DMark vantage texture fill score
Better passmark score 5,714 vs 4,985 Around 15% better passmark score
Better floating-point performance 3,090 GFLOPS vs 2,258 GFLOPS More than 35% better floating-point performance
Slightly better 3DMark vantage graphics score 33,025 vs 30,030 Around 10% better 3DMark vantage graphics score
Higher texture rate 128.8 GTexel/s vs 94.1 GTexel/s More than 35% higher texture rate
Significantly quieter idle noise level 38.5 dB vs 41 dB More than 5% quieter idle noise level
Higher pixel rate 32.2 GPixel/s vs 23.5 GPixel/s More than 35% higher pixel rate
Better SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4 score 7,800 vs 228 Around 34.2x better SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4 score
More texture mapping units 128 vs 96 32 more texture mapping units
Better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score 375 vs 333.8 More than 10% better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score
More shading units 1,536 vs 1,152 384 more shading units
Better CLBenchmark raytrace score 176,118 vs 130,616 Around 35% better CLBenchmark raytrace score
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 1,058 MHz vs 1,032 MHz Around 5% higher turbo clock speed
Better passmark direct compute score 2,919 vs 2,358 Around 25% better passmark direct compute score
Higher battlefield 3 framerate 119.6 fps vs 103.4 fps More than 15% higher battlefield 3 framerate
Higher civilization 5 framerate 97.4 fps vs 84.5 fps More than 15% higher civilization 5 framerate
More SMX units 8 vs 6 2 more SMX units

Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 760 vs 680

Passmark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performance

GeForce GTX 760
4,985
GeForce GTX 680
5,714
videocardbenchmark.net
Further, 3DMark11 does not seem a good choice either, as it let me run much higher clocks than were stable in other tests.
GeForce GTX 680 | by techPowerUp! (Mar, 2012)

3DMark Vantage (Texture Fill) Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX performance

GeForce GTX 760
82.8
GeForce GTX 680
106.1
GeForce GTX 760 GeForce GTX 680 @ anandtech.com

3DMark 11 Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 11 GPU performance

GeForce GTX 760
8,730
GeForce GTX 680
9,861
community.futuremark.com

Crysis: Warhead (2013) 1920x1080 - Enthusiast Quality + 4xAA

GeForce GTX 760
49.8 fps
GeForce GTX 680
53.5 fps
GeForce GTX 760 GeForce GTX 680 @ anandtech.com
Our Crysis 2 installation uses the high-res texture pack and DX11 upgrade, which helps explain this reading.
GeForce GTX 680 | by techPowerUp! (Aug, 2012)

Far Cry 3 1920 x 1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA + Enh. AtoC

GeForce GTX 760
41.5 fps
GeForce GTX 680
44.7 fps
GeForce GTX 760 GeForce GTX 680 @ anandtech.com
By genre, TES: Skyrim is a role-playing game; it combines some of the best elements of older titles in the franchise, with some new sandbox elements to churn out an extremely engaging and addictive game.
GeForce GTX 680 | by techPowerUp! (Aug, 2012)

BioShock Infinite 1920 x 1080 - Ultra preset + DX11 (DDOF)

GeForce GTX 760
68.2 fps
GeForce GTX 680
64.7 fps
GeForce GTX 680 @ notebookcheck.net
GeForce GTX 760 @ anandtech.com

Reviews Word on the street

GeForce GTX 760  vs 680 
9.0
read review
9.5
read review
This configuration is good for up to 375 W of power draw.
GeForce GTX 680

Comments

Showing 8 comments.
THEGPUBoss (05:08 PM, June 4, 2014)
how is it that the 760 burns the 680 on crisis 3? I don't get it.
Jett Angeles (03:59 AM, May 11, 2014)
760 is ALMOST better than the 680 for half the price. Having two 760's will be amazing :D. I can't wait to finish my rig :D.
Joseph Schultz (06:28 PM, May 7, 2014)
It looks kind of funny seeing the 680 having a superior gaming, benchmark, and compute performance scores to the 760, and yet having an equal noise and power score (even though I know the specific TDPs and noise levels themselves are not equal, but, however, are rather close). If that really were true, that would make it seem like the 760 is a less efficient card than the 680, hmm? I would have expected that, given the 760 is clearly a less powerful card, it would at least have the upper hand by a larger margin in power draw and noise levels.
shaun walsh (04:28 AM, April 30, 2014)
I think so, I think something is skewed on this site with its performance rating. The gtx 680 is by far a faster card. I mean, the 680 is faster then that 660ti, and the 660ti is faster than the 760, but for some reason it is saying the 760 is better at Crisis 3? I think something is wrong with this. I had a 680 signature 2 and it was an amazing card. Would trade my 760 in my current rig for one again any day
Ryan (06:09 PM, April 14, 2014)
No. If you are going to upgrade then the gtx 770is a better card at a lower cost. Of course you could just sli another gtx 760 and not have to worry for,a few years.
iSynthesis (12:10 PM, April 11, 2014)
Im thinking of upgrading from a gtx 760 to a 680 for 5760x1080. worth it?
ijustfarted3times (01:46 AM, March 11, 2014)
blasphemy!
Legendary (02:29 PM, October 23, 2013)
I'll stick to gtx 760,
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

GPUBoss
Rebellion Media Technology