AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
The Radeon R9 Nano has 69% better performance than the GeForce GTX 680 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano has 30% better value for the money than the GeForce GTX 680 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Summary
About the AMD Radeon R9 Nano GPU
The Radeon R9 Nano is an end-of-life desktop graphics card by AMD. It launched in Q3 2015 with a suggested retail price of $649. Its Fiji chip that powers the GPU uses the GCN 3.0 architecture and is fabricated on the 28 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 4 GB of HBM VRAM. Its 500 MHz memory clock and 4,096 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 512 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
The R9 Nano is a dual slot graphics card, taking up 2 PCIe slots. It supports HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 display ports. This desktop card has a TDP of 175 W. AMD recommends using a power supply of at least 450 W with this card. A power supply lower than this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
The Radeon R9 Nano has the 131st highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 16.47% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 17,282 score and $649 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 26.63. This is the 80th best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
About the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 GPU
The GeForce GTX 680 is an end-of-life desktop graphics card by NVIDIA. It launched in Q1 2012 with a suggested retail price of $499. Its GK104 chip that powers the GPU uses the Kepler architecture and is fabricated on the 28 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 2 GB of GDDR5 VRAM. Its 1,502 MHz memory clock and 256 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 192.3 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
The GTX 680 is a dual slot graphics card, taking up 2 PCIe slots. It supports DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 display ports. This desktop card has a TDP of 195 W. NVIDIA recommends using a power supply of at least 450 W with this card. A power supply lower than this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
The GeForce GTX 680 has the 175th highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 9.74% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 10,216.5 score and $499 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 20.47. This is the 83rd best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release Date | Q3 2015 | Q1 2012 |
| Launch Price (MSRP) | $649 | $499 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 720p | -- | 73 FPS |
| Medium - 768p | -- | 51 FPS |
| High - 1080p | -- | 30 FPS |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | 9 FPS |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | -- |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | 9 FPS |
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 980 | 18 | +112% |
| Radeon RX 470 | 17.8 | +109% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 16.8 | +98% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 16.5 | +94% |
| GeForce GTX 1050 | 9 | +6% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 8.5 | |
| GeForce GT 1030 | 5 | -41% |
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB) | 15.74 | -73% |
| GeForce GT 1030 | 15.8 | -73% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 19.94 | -66% |
| Radeon R9 FURY | 21.87 | -63% |
| GeForce GTX 980 | 30.5 | -48% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 58.71 | |
Benchmark Performance
The Radeon R9 Nano has 69% better performance than the GeForce GTX 680 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 131st with a score of 17,282, and the GeForce GTX 680 is ranked 175th with a score of 10,216.5.
The Radeon R9 Nano has 30% better value for the money than the GeForce GTX 680 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 80th with a performance per dollar of 26.63, and the GeForce GTX 680 is ranked 83rd with a performance per dollar of 20.47.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon R9 FURY | 17,543 | +2% |
| GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB) | 17,401 | +1% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 17,282 | |
| Radeon R9 290X | 16,167.5 | -6% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 16,033 | -7% |
| Radeon R9 280X | 10,792 | -38% |
| GeForce GTX 960 | 10,767.5 | -38% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 10,216.5 | -41% |
| GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 9,453 | -45% |
| GeForce GTX 590 | 9,166.5 | -47% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 980 | 32.07 | +20% |
| Radeon R9 FURY | 31.95 | +20% |
| Radeon R9 290X | 29.45 | +11% |
| GeForce GTX 660 Ti | 28.14 | +6% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 26.63 | |
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | 22.34 | -16% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 20.47 | -23% |
| Radeon HD 7770 (GHz Edition) | 19.48 | -27% |
| Radeon HD 7870 (GHz Edition) | 17.75 | -33% |
| Radeon HD 6870 | 17.65 | -34% |
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Time Spy Graphics | 4,511 (+118.13%) | 2,068 |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 4,556 (+95.37%) | 2,332 |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 81,374 (+72.66%) | 47,130 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 14,362 (+89.3%) | 7,587 |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 14,793 (+47.93%) | 10,000 |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | -- | 78.2 |
| PassMark G3D Mark | -- | 5,553 |
| PassMark G2D Mark | -- | 527 |
Technical Specs
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Fiji | GK104 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Transistors | 8,900 million | 3,540 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 Gb/s | 192.3 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 500 MHz | 1,502 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 4,096 bit | 256 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Slots | 2 slots | 2 slots |
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 175 W | 195 W |
| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 450 W |
| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Outputs | HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 | DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 4,096 | -- |
| CUDA Cores | -- | 1,536 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 64 | -- |
| Stream Multiprocessors (SM) | -- | 8 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 256 | 128 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 64 | 32 |
| Core Clock Speed | 1,000 MHz | 1,006 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | -- | 1,058 MHz |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 64 GPixel/s | 33.86 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 256 GTexel/s | 135.4 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 8.19 TFLOPS | 3.25 TFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 512 GFLOPS | 135.4 GFLOPS |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | GeForce GTX 680 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 (5.1) |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.