OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£430VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):195 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 28 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.9

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 91% of graphics cards
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 86%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 94%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 51% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (28)
12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 16 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 51%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
nvidia-geforce-gtx-680
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

Based on 12 · 20

Reviewers praise its high clock speeds and multi-monitor support, but criticize weak software, limited memory and poor value; performance splits opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

Based on 205 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive17%mixed14%negative

Owners praise its gaming performance and staying power, while limited VRAM and low frame rates hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • At high settings or on triple monitors and 2560x1600, owners report frame rates falling into the 20s or single digits in demanding games.14
  • The 2GB version runs out of video memory in newer games, causing stutter, and frame rates can drop to single digits.9
  • Owners report temperatures near 75 to 80 °C under load, and boost can stop when the card passes about 65 °C.6
  • Owners say it is only a few frames faster than the Radeon 7970 and about the same as a GTX 780 once overclocked.5
  • Owners report driver crashes after a few minutes of play, with display driver stopped responding errors and blue screens in some games.5
  • Some owners see SLI give no gain or even lower frame rates than a single card in certain games and setups, such as triple monitors.4
  • Some owners can only add about 60 MHz to the core clock before the driver crashes, and higher offsets make games crash.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

3.9
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

6.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,332 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,332 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 94.8% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,615 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,615 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 92.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,910 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,910 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 90.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.25 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.25 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 86.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 93.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
195 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 195 W, which is lower than that of 54.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
195 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 195 W under peak load, which is lower than 57.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
195 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 195 W, which is lower than that of 57.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
195 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
256x 111x 38 mm
Length
254 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 254 mm long, which is shorter than 66.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
792 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 792 g, which is lighter than 71.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (28)
    12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 16 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (28)
    12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 16 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (254 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    254 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 57.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,058 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,058 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 47.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,006 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,006 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 50.0% lower sentiment score
    3.9 vs 7.8
  • 13.3% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.55 vs 7.4).
    6.55 vs 7.41
  • 57.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,058 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,058 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 47.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,006 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,006 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 79% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (33.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    33.86 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 64.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (135.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    135.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 85.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.25 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 11 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2012 vs 2023).
    March 2012
    2012 vs 2023
  • 75.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,615 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,615 points vs 22,638 points
  • 84.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,332 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,332 points vs 14,779 points
  • 75.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,910 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,910 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 70.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 2,816 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,536 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,536 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 14.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 84.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • 42 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    42 dB vs 0 dB
  • 5.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
Adrian's Tech Base
≈ estimated
27/06/2026
Hands-on review · 2026 game, benchmark and emulator tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 isn't worth buying for modern games, though it's fine for retro and older PC builds.
4.0
SpecBench
≈ estimated
22/11/2025
Retro test · 2025 games on a 13-year-old card
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 isn't worth buying in 2025, though it still runs some older games.
5.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
09/12/2024
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is a very good card for its age, but more efficient alternatives and no DirectX 12 make it hard to recommend.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
12/07/2023
Hands-on test · GTA 5 at 1080p, 1440p and 4K
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is fine at 1080p, but its 2GB of VRAM forces compromises at 1440p and 4K.
5.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
09/07/2023
Retro benchmark · 26 games at 1080p in 2023
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is surprisingly capable with older games, but most people are better off with a GTX 750 Ti.
6.0
PC Tech Review 101
≈ estimated
09/07/2022
Hands-on review · SLI gaming tests in supported titles
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 posts strong frame rates in SLI-supported games, but driver support has been dropped and many new titles won't run.
7.0
technhealth
≈ estimated
12/06/2020
Long-term look · 2020 game tests at 1080p and 720p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 has aged, but it's still playable in recent games if you lower the resolution.
7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
08/03/2018
Retrospective review · gaming benchmarks, overclocking, power and used-price check
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is still playable at 1080p, but its 2GB memory and high power draw hold it back, so it's only worth buying at a low price.
5.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
04/05/2017
Hands-on review · older card tested in games and overclocking
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is still usable with overclocking, but the GTX 1050 Ti is the better buy.
9.0
Tek Syndicate
≈ estimated
06/09/2012
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and SLI tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is very powerful, even on three monitors, and its overclocking software is easy to use.
9.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
22/03/2012
Performance review · 1080p benchmarks and power tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 wins clearly at 1080p with impressive power use, though some driver issues remain.
9.5
Motherboards.org
≈ estimated
22/03/2012
Hands-on review · performance, temperatures and features
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 earns our Editor's Choice as the fastest single card around, with only minor drawbacks like extra heat.
More graded video reviews (4)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
22/03/2012
Benchmark review · Kepler architecture
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is a Kepler card that adjusts clock speeds on the fly with GPU Boost and aims to be the fastest single-GPU card.
9.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
02/05/2012
Benchmark review · Kepler architecture
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is a fast, power-efficient single-GPU card that beats the Radeon HD 7970 in most tests and suits gamers who want low power draw.
8.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
23/03/2012
Performance review · Kepler GPU
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is the new flagship, smaller, quieter and more efficient than the GTX 580, though it barely outpaces it in Metro 2033.
9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
22/03/2012
Lab review · Gaming-focused card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is a gamer-focused card that runs quietly and drives four monitors, but gives up the compute strength of Fermi cards.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
22/03/2012
Benchmark review · Gaming graphics card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is a fast, fairly low-power card for gamers who want top speed, though its top-end status is debatable.
9.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
16/04/2012
Performance review · High-end gaming card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is a quiet, energy-efficient card that narrowly beats the Radeon HD 7970 and suits enthusiasts running large or multiple high-resolution monitors.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
22/03/2012
Architecture analysis · Kepler GK104
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 pairs a smaller Kepler chip with GPU Boost, which raises clocks whenever power headroom allows, though its cores run slower than Fermi's.
www4.anandtech.com
22/03/2012
Not graded yet
7.1
pcwelt.de
✓ explicit
30/05/2012
Hands-on test · Factory-overclocked card
Verdict
The Asus GeForce GTX 680 DirectCU 2 TOP is a fast, factory-overclocked card for high-end gaming, but it gets loud under load and comes with no adapters.
9.5
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
22/03/2012
Lab test · Gaming-focused card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is the fastest single-GPU card tested, quiet and efficient, but built for gaming and weak at general compute tasks.
8.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
22/03/2012
Benchmark review · Quiet flagship
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 680 is the strongest card available, combining efficient power use with quiet cooling for high-end gaming.
8.0
xataka.com
≈ estimated
15/06/2012
Benchmark review · Heat and noise
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 680 trades blows with the Radeon 7970 in tests, drawing less peak power but running hotter than AMD's card.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
16/05/2012
Hands-on test · Overclocking and cooling
Verdict
The ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DirectCU II TOP is a fast, quiet card with a huge cooler and plenty of overclocking headroom, best for owners with large cases.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

  • High energy efficiency with significant performance-per-watt improvements over previous generations
  • Top-tier gaming performance for its era, capable of handling modern titles smoothly at launch
  • Quiet and cool operation, even under heavy load conditions
  • Supports up to four monitors and 3D Vision Surround on a single card
  • Relatively compact physical profile compared to its predecessors, improving airflow and case compatibility

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

  • Limited VRAM (standard 2GB) can struggle with high-resolution textures and modern AAA gaming
  • Lack of full DirectX 12 support, leading to compatibility issues with newer game releases
  • Blocks adjacent expansion slots due to its dual-slot design
  • Requires a high-quality power supply with specific 6-pin PCIe connectors
  • Higher idle power consumption compared to some competitors that feature deep-sleep power states

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 is a high-end graphics card built on the 28nm Kepler architecture, featuring 1,536 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1,006 MHz (boostable to 1,058 MHz), and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit interface. It was a flagship release known for introducing GPU Boost technology, which dynamically adjusts clock speeds for better performance, and supporting up to four concurrent displays via its HDMI, DisplayPort, and dual DVI outputs. Main pros include its impressive power efficiency for its time with a 195W TDP, quiet operation, and strong 1080p performance in classic titles. However, modern cons include its limited 2 GB VRAM buffer which struggles with contemporary AAA titles, a lack of hardware-level DirectX 12 feature support (stuck at 11_0), and the cessation of official driver updates as it has reached end-of-life status.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found