GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce GTX 680, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
32.07
+122%

Pro Vega 56 outperforms GTX 680 by a whopping 122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking173361
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation44.703.03
Power efficiency10.465.08
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameVega 10GK104
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro Vega 56 has 1375% better value for money than GTX 680.

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 cores35841536
Core clock speed1138 MHz1006 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1058 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt195 Watt
Texture fill rate280.0135.4
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS3.25 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs224128

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 supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data254 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2048 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed786 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s192.2 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.2
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.1.126
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 56 32.07
+122%
GTX 680 14.45

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+122%
GTX 680 5567

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+150%
GTX 680 10217

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+135%
GTX 680 7587

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 61630
+235%
GTX 680 18403

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 65862
+276%
GTX 680 17527

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p95−100
+111%
45
−111%
Full HD100
+35.1%
74
−35.1%
4K61
+165%
23
−165%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.996.74
4K6.5421.70

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+109%
30−35
−109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+121%
45−50
−121%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+124%
27−30
−124%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+112%
30−35
−112%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+108%
35−40
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+81.9%
90−95
−81.9%
Hitman 3 65−70
+148%
27−30
−148%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+89.2%
70−75
−89.2%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+118%
45−50
−118%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+97.5%
40−45
−97.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+140%
45−50
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+53.9%
75−80
−53.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+109%
30−35
−109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+121%
45−50
−121%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+124%
27−30
−124%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+112%
30−35
−112%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+108%
35−40
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+81.9%
90−95
−81.9%
Hitman 3 65−70
+148%
27−30
−148%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+89.2%
70−75
−89.2%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+118%
45−50
−118%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+97.5%
40−45
−97.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+140%
45−50
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
−40.3%
94
+40.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+53.9%
75−80
−53.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+109%
30−35
−109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+124%
27−30
−124%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+112%
30−35
−112%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+81.9%
90−95
−81.9%
Hitman 3 65−70
+148%
27−30
−148%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+89.2%
70−75
−89.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+140%
45−50
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+191%
22
−191%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+53.9%
75−80
−53.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+97.5%
40−45
−97.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+118%
27−30
−118%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+123%
21−24
−123%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+209%
10−12
−209%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+147%
14−16
−147%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+118%
16−18
−118%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+149%
70−75
−149%
Hitman 3 40−45
+135%
16−18
−135%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+134%
27−30
−134%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+144%
24−27
−144%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+196%
24−27
−196%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
+89.9%
85−90
−89.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+125%
24−27
−125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+136%
10−12
−136%
Hitman 3 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+123%
70−75
−123%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+179%
14−16
−179%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+163%
16
−163%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+132%
18−20
−132%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+200%
14−16
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and GTX 680 compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is 111% faster in 900p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 35% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 165% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 350% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680 is 40% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 71 test (99%)
  • GTX 680 is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.07 14.45
Recency 14 August 2017 22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2048 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 195 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 121.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 680, on the other hand, has 7.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop one.


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.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680

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.


3.5 90 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 583 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680 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.