Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti based on its .
See full details| | GeForce GTX 780 Ti vs EVGA GeForce GTX 690 |
by techPowerUp!The EVGA ACX cooler does look nice, but I still don't think it can compete with the NVIDIA reference design cooler and its large shiny metal surfaces.
by techPowerUp! (May, 2012)But with its screaming performance, the noise levels are an acceptable tradeoff and GTX 690 is still much quieter than any competing multi-GPU setup that can provide similar FPS numbers.
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| GeForce GTX 690 N/A | |
| crysis: warhead (2013), Crysis: Warhead (2012), Batman: Arkham City and 6 more | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| GeForce GTX 690 8.7 | |
| Passmark, 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill, 3DMark 11 Graphics and 2 more | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| GeForce GTX 690 8.2 | |
| Civilization 5 Texture Decomposition (2013) and Passmark Direct Compute | |
Noise and Power | |
How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load | |
| GeForce GTX 690 7.8 | |
| 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 690 8.4 | |
Winner |
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 TiGPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| Significantly better passmark score | 9,017 | vs | 5,183 | Around 75% better passmark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more energy-efficient idle power consumption | 80W | vs | 132W | Around 40% more energy-efficient idle power consumption | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 46,186 | vs | 41,180 | More than 10% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Significantly more energy-efficient load power consumption | 372W | vs | 472W | More than 20% more energy-efficient load power consumption | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 7,000 MHz | vs | 6,008 MHz | More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly better passmark direct compute score | 4,653 | vs | 2,528 | Around 85% better passmark direct compute score | |||
| Quieter load noise level | 51.7 dB | vs | 54.5 dB | More than 5% quieter load noise level | |||
| Quieter idle noise level | 38.6 dB | vs | 40 dB | Around 5% quieter idle noise level | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,752 MHz | vs | 1,502 MHz | More than 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | 396 | vs | 376 | More than 5% better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Is dual GPU | Yes | vs | No | About half of graphics cards are dual GPU | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 30,360 | vs | 15,619 | Around 95% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 3,072 MB | Around 35% more memory | |||
| Higher clock speed | 915 MHz | vs | 875 MHz | Around 5% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 384.6 GB/s | vs | 336 GB/s | Around 15% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Slightly better floating-point performance | 5,622 GFLOPS | vs | 5,040 GFLOPS | More than 10% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 234.2 GTexel/s | vs | 210 GTexel/s | More than 10% higher texture rate | |||
| More render output processors | 64 | vs | 48 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 58.6 GPixel/s | vs | 52.5 GPixel/s | More than 10% higher pixel rate | |||
| Wider memory bus | 512 bit | vs | 384 bit | Around 35% wider memory bus | |||
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | vs | GeForce GTX 690 | ||
| 9.4 | 9.5 | GeForce GTX 690 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|