GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon R9 380

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 and GeForce GTX 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.91
+10.6%

R9 380 outperforms GTX 680 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking315340
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.085.22
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTonga ProGK104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date26 June 2015 (9 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $499
Current price$12.90 (0.1x MSRP)$156 (0.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 380 has 74% better value for money than GTX 680.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores17921536
CUDA coresno data1536
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data1006 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz1058 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt195 Watt
Texture fill rate108.6128.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance3,476 gflops3,090.4 gflops

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
Length221 mm10.0" (25.4 cm)
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinTwo 6-pin
SLI optionsno data+
Bridgeless CrossFire1no data

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2048 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed970 MHz6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
Eyefinity+no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
HDCPno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
DisplayPort support+no data
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune+no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore+no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.2
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+no data
CUDAno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 380 15.91
+10.6%
GTX 680 14.38

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 380 6146
+10.6%
GTX 680 5555

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 11% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 380 12191
+19.3%
GTX 680 10217

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 19% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 380 29722
+0.1%
GTX 680 29702

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 380 8218
+8.3%
GTX 680 7587

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 8% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 380 50723
+7.6%
GTX 680 47130

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 8% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

R9 380 303773
+22.8%
GTX 680 247306

Radeon R9 380 outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 23% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

R9 380 928
GTX 680 964
+3.9%

GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Radeon R9 380 by 4% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.

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:

900p45−50
+0%
45
+0%
Full HD63
−22.2%
77
+22.2%
4K24
+4.3%
23
−4.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27 no data
Battlefield 5 50−55 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 no data
Far Cry 5 35−40 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45 no data
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 no data
Hitman 3 30−35 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65 no data
Metro Exodus 50−55 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27 no data
Battlefield 5 50−55 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 no data
Far Cry 5 35−40 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45 no data
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 no data
Hitman 3 30−35 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65 no data
Metro Exodus 50−55 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 no data
Far Cry 5 35−40 no data
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 no data
Far Cry 5 24−27 no data
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 no data
Hitman 3 18−20 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35 no data
Metro Exodus 27−30 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14 no data
Hitman 3 12−14 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 no data
Far Cry 5 9−10 no data
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18 no data
Metro Exodus 14−16 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 no data

This is how R9 380 and GTX 680 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 900p
  • GTX 680 is 22% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 4% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.91 14.38
Recency 26 June 2015 22 March 2012
Cost $199 $499
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2048 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 195 Watt

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 in performance tests.


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 380
Radeon R9 380
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.


4.1 765 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 560 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.