GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon R9 280

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 and GeForce GTX 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.40

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking360356
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.262.95
Power efficiency5.145.28
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTahitiGK104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280 has 78% 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 cores17921536
Core clock speedno data1006 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1058 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt195 Watt
Texture fill rate104.5135.4
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS3.25 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs112128

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mm254 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin2x 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 amount3 GB2048 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit256-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.2
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
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.

R9 280 14.40
GTX 680 14.42
+0.1%

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.

R9 280 5557
GTX 680 5565
+0.1%

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.

R9 280 8020
+5.7%
GTX 680 7587

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:

900p40−45
−12.5%
45
+12.5%
Full HD70−75
−4.3%
73
+4.3%
4K24−27
−8.3%
26
+8.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 94
+0%
94
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how R9 280 and GTX 680 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is 13% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680 is 4% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 680 is 8% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.40 14.42
Recency 4 March 2014 22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2048 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 195 Watt

R9 280 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 680, on the other hand, has a 0.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 2.6% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 280 and GeForce GTX 680.


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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
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.


3.6 384 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 570 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.