GeForce GTX 770 vs 690 |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 770 vs 690 among Desktop 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 | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 770GPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1,046 MHz | vs | 915 MHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 7,012 MHz | vs | 6,008 MHz | More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark score | 6,099 | vs | 5,331 | Around 15% better PassMark score | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,753 MHz | vs | 1,502 MHz | More than 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Better ocean surface simulation score | 1,631.29 frames/s | vs | 1,403.86 frames/s | More than 15% better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 3,083 | vs | 2,523 | More than 20% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Lower TDP | 230W | vs | 300W | Around 25% lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Is dual GPU | Yes | vs | No | About half of graphics cards are dual GPU | |||
| Much higher memory bandwidth | 384.6 GB/s | vs | 224 GB/s | More than 70% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 17,380 | vs | 11,310 | Around 55% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Significantly better floating-point performance | 5,621.8 GFLOPS | vs | 3,213 GFLOPS | Around 75% better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly higher texture rate | 234.2 GTexel/s | vs | 134 GTexel/s | Around 75% higher texture rate | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Many more texture mapping units | 256 | vs | 128 | Twice as many texture mapping units | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 41,180 | vs | 36,150 | Around 15% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Many more shading units | 3,072 | vs | 1,536 | Twice as many shading units | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 58.56 GPixel/s | vs | 33.5 GPixel/s | Around 75% higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly more render output processors | 64 | vs | 32 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Much wider memory bus | 512 bit | vs | 256 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
| Significantly higher battlefield 4 framerate | 117.5 | vs | 57.5 | More than 2x higher battlefield 4 framerate | |||
| Better fire strike factor score | 71.92 | vs | 60.75 | Around 20% better fire strike factor score | |||
| Slightly better manhattan score | 5,468 | vs | 3,714.32 | More than 45% better manhattan score | |||
Report a correction
