Afterward recently retesting the GeForce GTX 580 8 years after its release, nosotros thought it would exist interesting to check dorsum in on the GTX 680, another old friend that was released most six years ago as Nvidia'south latest and greatest graphics card and a successor to the aforementioned 580.

Before we get to the tests and game benchmarks, let'south quickly recap the specs and a footling history about the compages this carte is based on. For those of you not interested in the trip down retentiveness lane, at least you can enjoy images of the graphics menu in question as you scroll by...

Based on the Kepler architecture, the 680'south GPU was codenamed GK104 and marked Nvidia'southward transition to the 28nm process, a move that allowed for three.5 billion transistors to exist crammed into a tiny 294mm2 dice. Nvidia likewise managed to squeeze in what was at the time a massive 1536 CUDA cores, three times that of the GTX 580. Not simply that but the cores were clocked xxx% college and yet overall the GPU consumed less power.

The focus was on efficiency with Kepler and Nvidia basically bankrupt its previous Fermi compages downward to the core and then rebuilt it to improve power consumption and die size. The consequence was the world's fastest graphics menu for gaming, at to the lowest degree when it was first released.

AMD actually beat Nvidia to the punch three months earlier with the Hard disk drive 7970 -- how times have changed in that regard. Although the GTX 680 was 4% cheaper at launch and offered 7% more performance in my tests, it did suffer from poor availability for quite a few months after release, then zippo unusual there.

Back so, AMD did a good task of keeping Nvidia on its toes. The Radeon HD 4000 series spurred a war that saw the GTX 200 series receive numerous price cuts. The HD 5000 series had full run of the market place for one-half a year before GTX 400 cards arrived, and every bit I said, in 2022 AMD was almost three months ahead with the Hd 7970.

Being slightly behind, information technology was important for Nvidia to come out guns blazing and to an extent that's what the visitor did. The GTX 680 was without question the fastest unmarried-GPU graphics card money could buy. Not but was it faster than the HD 7970, simply it was too more efficient, quieter and cheaper when it outset launched. Information technology would exist interesting to see how they compare today.

I'm too neat to come across how the GTX 680 stacks up against today's GPUs in modern games. Representing Nvidia's vintage GPU is Gainward's Phantom model, sporting the more than standard 2GB VRAM buffer. All benchmarking has been conducted on our GPU test rig, which is comprised of a Core i7-8700K clocked at 5GHz and 32GB of DDR4-3200 retention.

Let's see how the GTX 680 stacks up today…

Benchmarks

When using the ultra quality preset at 1080p the GTX 680 is actually slower than the Radeon HD 7950, though it was a whopping 81% faster than the GTX 580. No uncertainty the slightly larger memory buffer is helping to improve things hither.

In Dawn of War III the GTX 680 managed to roughly friction match the Hard disk 7950, and this meant as a result it was once again much faster than the GTX 580. The 1% low result was too respectable and clearly 2GB is the minimum frame buffer size yous can get abroad with in this title when using the medium quality settings, and then no real surprises there.

The GTX 680 does extremely well in Dirt 4, taking the top spot on our graph with an impressive 116fps on average when using the medium quality preset, or 12% faster than the Hd 7950 and 81% faster than the GTX 580.

Moving on, For Accolade shows potent operation from the GTX 680 as it again takes the top spot being 25% faster than the Hard disk drive 7950 and lx% faster than the GTX 580.

Performance in Ghost Recon Wildlands was decent as the GTX 680 roughly matched the GTX 1050 and was 20% faster than the HD 7950 while being more twice as fast as the GTX 580. Although nosotros're but using the low quality settings, the game is nonetheless very heavy on VRAM usage, virtually maxing out the 2GB buffer in our test.

Using the medium quality settings in Mass Outcome Andromeda, performance was quite solid as the GTX 680 allowed for an average of 70fps, though it was slower than the GTX 1050 Ti and simply slightly faster than the HD 7950.

Moving on to Prey using the high quality preset you really demand a 4GB frame buffer in this title and with the GTX 680 well-nigh all of the textures were missing, leaving us with blurry surfaces. Withal, overall the performance was good and the game ran smoothly despite the missing textures.

Lastly we have Resident Evil 7's results, in which the GTX 680 landed just behind the GTX 1050 Ti and HD 7950. Using the medium quality preset it managed to average 98fps and was thus 44% faster than the GTX 580. Overall, the GTX 680 seemed to deliver a similar experience to that of the GTX 1050 Ti, simply let's take a closer look at that.

Okay so here is a break downward of the eight games nosotros just looked at and on average we can see that the GTX 680 basically matched the GTX 1050 Ti. I'thousand a little surprised by this considering final time I compared them the 1050 Ti came out on top. That said, I simply checked out v games at the time and it was a close call then with the GTX 680 but being faster in Battlefield 1.

Before we wrap things up, let'south expect at some gameplay footage.

Gameplay Footage

First upwards I played a few rounds of Rainbow Six Siege and found on boilerplate that the GTX 680 was good for over 100fps when using the medium quality settings at 1080p. The frame time performance was also splendid, enabling smooth gameplay that immune even a novice like me to get a few decent shots in. Overall, information technology was a bully experience and you could still have a lot of fun in this title with a GTX 680.

The feel in Battlefield 1 with the medium quality preset was pretty solid. At times the game was smooth and playable over 50fps on average, though at other times there was noticeable frame lag equally frame rates dipped into the 40s. The feel was nonetheless quite playable and enjoyable given the conditions.

I found similar results when playing Battlefront II, but the GTX 680 could handle high quality settings hither, which looked great and still offered excellent frame rates with an average of just over 60fps.

Fortnite plays well on pretty much annihilation and when running the game using its high quality preset the GTX 680 averaged just shy of 70fps after 10 minutes of gameplay and remained well to a higher place 50fps at all times -- the frametime data was also very solid.

Like Fortnite, you can play Overwatch on only about anything and here we see that when playing on ultra quality the GTX 680 allowed for an average of almost 90fps while frame rates stayed above 50fps at all times.

The last game we're looking at is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds and it actually ran pretty well. I saw an average of 66fps with a minimum of 59fps using the medium quality settings, which is a smooth and playable experience overall.

Nosotros have some power consumption figures to wrap upward our testing. Here the GTX 680 reduced full system consumption by nigh 20% compared to the GTX 580, given how much faster information technology was this is a significant step forward in terms of performance per watt. That said, it notwithstanding pushed system consumption 26% higher than that of the Radeon HD 7950 and a piddling over 60% higher compared to the GTX 1050 Ti, then non great by today'south standards that's for certain.

Matching today'southward GTX 1050 Ti

That pretty much covers everything well-nigh the performance of this well-aged graphics card, with the exception of overclocking, but those results will vary from card to card. At that place's also the fact that our factory overclocked examination model wasn't behaving when overclocked and I didn't take a heap of time to mess around with it at the moment. As mentioned earlier, I have a 4GB model in the mail service so I'll check that out when it arrives and see if it's willing to play ball.

In terms of extra performance, yous can probably await anywhere from five to 15% more than frames depending on how well the card overclocks. For those of yous not interested in overclocking, the adept news is that a typical factory overclocked model like the Gainward version I used should match a factory overclocked GTX 1050 Ti in most titles.

As you saw (if you didn't skip the benchmarks), the GTX 680 was just a unmarried frame slower on average and 2 frames for the one% low result. Information technology was also viii% faster than the HD 7950 and xiii% faster than the vanilla GTX 1050, and it blitzed the older GTX 580 by a mammoth 65% margin. The GTX 580's 1536MB frame buffer is only besides limited for many of today's titles and we're even seeing issues with 2GB now.

Seeing 1050 Ti-like operation from the GTX 680 is certainly acceptable and should handle modern games at 1080p using respectable quality settings. For those poor souls who have forgotten how much the GTX 1050 Ti should toll, I went and looked it up: $139 is the MSRP, which doesn't sound right but information technology is. However, you'd exist doing quite well if you lot were to get one for $220 today.

Tin you lot salvage some money and go the GTX 680 second-paw instead? Yes, if you lot're lucky. At eBay, nosotros come across that so far this month the cheapest GTX 680 auction ended at just over $100 and the average selling price of the 16 cards sold then far is $160.

You'd probably want to do better than $160 equally that's simply a 27% savings on a second-hand graphics card. I'd aim for around $120 as a limit on buying a used GTX 680 and if yous tin can become a 4GB model, well evidently practice so. You're chances of snagging a GTX 680 today for less than $100 is basically cypher though, so set up realistic expectations.

Shopping shortcuts:

  • GeForce GTX 680 on Amazon, eBay
  • GeForce GTX 1050 Ti on Amazon, Newegg

Besides simply being quondam (and used if you go that route), remember that the GTX 680 besides chugs a lot of power. The GTX 1050 Ti by comparing runs much cooler, quieter and information technology won't ravage your power supply like an FX-9590 trying to keep up with one of AMD'southward new APUs. The smaller VRAM buffer might also be an issue at times unless you manage to get your easily on a 4GB GTX 680, which too isn't going to exist easy.