Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 based on its gaming.
See full details GeForce GTX 760 vs 680 |
Released June, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
- 980 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
7.5 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!Gigabyte says their card will retail at the reference design price of $250, which is quite nice since you get a decent overclock out of the box for free, and get to enjoy the improved WindForce 3X cooler.
VS
Released March, 2012
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
- 1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
8.1 Out of 10
by FALCON (Dec, 2012)Other: I really love what the card can do with all these cuda cores and the high texture fill rate (102 on the GTX 670, 128 on the 680 - thats a25.4 % increase).
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 760 vs 680
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| crysis: warhead (2013), battlefield 3 (2013), Civilization 5 and Far Cry 3 | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| Passmark, 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill, 3DMark 11 Graphics and 2 more | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| 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 | |
| TDP, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level, Idle Power Consumption and 1 more | |
GPUBoss Score | |
Gaming, Benchmarks, Compute Performance and Noise and Power | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 680GPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| More energy-efficient idle power consumption | 108W | vs | 112W | Around 5% more energy-efficient idle power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher crysis 3 framerate | 58.7 fps | vs | 36.8 fps | Around 60% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| Quieter load noise level | 50 dB | vs | 51.9 dB | Around 5% quieter load noise level | |||
| Slightly more energy-efficient load power consumption | 336W | vs | 356W | More than 5% more energy-efficient load power consumption | |||
| Slightly lower TDP | 170W | vs | 195W | Around 15% lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 26,525.5 | vs | 16,620 | Around 60% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage texture fill score | 106.1 | vs | 82.8 | Around 30% better 3DMark vantage texture fill score | |||
| Better passmark score | 5,696 | vs | 5,008 | Around 15% better passmark score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 3,090 GFLOPS | vs | 2,258 GFLOPS | More than 35% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 128.8 GTexel/s | vs | 94.1 GTexel/s | More than 35% higher texture rate | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 32.2 GPixel/s | vs | 23.5 GPixel/s | More than 35% higher pixel rate | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 33,025 | vs | 30,210 | Around 10% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Quieter idle noise level | 38.5 dB | vs | 41 dB | More than 5% quieter idle noise level | |||
| 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 | |||
| More shading units | 1,536 | vs | 1,152 | 384 more shading units | |||
| Better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | 375 | vs | 333.8 | More than 10% better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | |||
| 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 | 2,923 | vs | 2,390 | More than 20% better passmark direct compute score | |||
| Higher civilization 5 framerate | 97.4 fps | vs | 84.5 fps | More than 15% higher civilization 5 framerate | |||
| Higher battlefield 3 framerate | 119.6 fps | vs | 103.4 fps | More than 15% higher battlefield 3 framerate | |||
| Slightly higher far cry 3 framerate | 44.7 fps | vs | 41.5 fps | Around 10% higher far cry 3 framerate | |||
| More SMX units | 8 | vs | 6 | 2 more SMX units | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 760 vs 680
Passmark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performance
GeForce GTX 680 | by Gabrial (May, 2012)I actually bumped up from a GTX 670 and my 3DMark scores rose 450 points before overclocking.
3DMark Vantage (Texture Fill) Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX performance
GeForce GTX 680 | by Cool-Mike (Jun, 2012)P11500+ (for my system)3dmark11 graphics score for a single GPU is wonderful.
3DMark 11 Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 11 GPU performance
GeForce GTX 680 | by Preston-Nalley (Nov, 2012)The twin frozr 4 cooler is remarkable and I never went into the 70's during several runs of 3dmark 11 and unigine heaven.
Crysis: Warhead (2013) 1920x1080 - Enthusiast Quality + 4xAA
GeForce GTX 680 | by Evilzombie--greearfI have High resolution texture packs on any games from Crysis 2, to Skyrim, to user made mods on Oblivion and it works like a dream.
Far Cry 3 1920 x 1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA + Enh. AtoC
GeForce GTX 680 | by blackobsidian--blackobsidian (Feb, 2013)The card runs very cool and quiet (idles at 29C), even playing very demanding games like BF3 and Far Cry 3 (runs at 59C at optimal settings).
BioShock Infinite 1920 x 1080 - Ultra preset + DX11 (DDOF)
Reviews Word on the street
| GeForce GTX 760 | vs | 680 | ||
 | GeForce GTX 680 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
