Radeon R9 255 OEM vs GeForce GTX 680

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking355not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.95no data
Power efficiency5.12no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Cape Verde
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)21 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536512
Core clock speed1006 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz930 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate135.429.76
Floating-point processing power3.25 TFLOPS0.9523 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12832

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length254 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin1x 6-pin
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2048 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR5128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s73.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 March 2012 21 December 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 195 Watt 65 Watt

R9 255 OEM has an age advantage of 1 year, and 200% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 680 and Radeon R9 255 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
Radeon R9 255 OEM

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 573 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1066 votes

Rate Radeon R9 255 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.