AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 680M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no overlapping benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon 680M. The Instinct MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Radeon 680M has three recorded entries. Direct comparison between the two is therefore impossible based on measured performance data. The Instinct MI325X holds a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, while the Radeon 680M sits higher at the 57th percentile. However, these percentile figures come from different benchmark pools and do not represent a head-to-head comparison.

The Radeon 680M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378. In Geekbench OpenCL, it records 23,468 points, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it achieves 21,965 points. These results place its average benchmark score at 15,270. The nearest rivals in the database show a tight cluster around this figure. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 averages 15,283, a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the 680M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 averages 15,290, also -0.1 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199, putting it 0.5 percent behind. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15,171, trailing by 0.7 percent. The spread across these four rivals is less than one percent, indicating the 680M sits in a performance band where small margins separate competitors.

The Instinct MI325X, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of zero and no nearest rivals listed. Its raw specifications suggest far higher theoretical throughput. The FP32 compute rate for the MI325X is 81.72 TFLOPS, while the 680M manages 3.379 TFLOPS. Texture rate for the MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 105.6 GTexel/s for the 680M. Memory bandwidth differs by orders of magnitude: 6.14 TB/s for the MI325X, while the 680M uses system shared memory with bandwidth labeled system dependent. These figures indicate the MI325X is designed for a completely different workload class, not for direct competition.

The Radeon 680M wins the only measurable comparisons in the database simply because it has data. The Instinct MI325X has no benchmark entries, no wins recorded, and no head-to-head results. The win count in the database shows zero wins for both parts, reflecting the absence of overlapping tests.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded data, the AMD Radeon 680M is the only one of the two with measurable performance. Its three benchmark scores place it in the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 15,270. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmarks, no average score, and a 50th percentile rank that appears to be a placeholder rather than a derived statistic.

Users who need a working integrated graphics solution with verified results should consider the Radeon 680M. It delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 378, Geekbench OpenCL performance of 23,468, and Vulkan performance of 21,965. Its nearest rivals, including the RTX 2060 and GTX 580, sit within one percent of its average score, meaning the 680M holds its own against those older discrete parts in the database.

Users who need massive compute throughput for AI or scientific workloads would look at the Instinct MI325X based on its specifications, but the database contains no measured evidence of its performance. The MI325X uses 1,000 W of power, has 256 GB of HBM3e memory, and an 8,192-bit memory bus. These specifications target a server or datacenter environment, not a desktop or mobile system. The 680M, with a 50 W TDP and IGP form factor, targets portable devices with system shared memory.

The data does not support a recommendation for the Instinct MI325X in any measured sense. Its percentile rank of 50 with zero benchmark scores indicates no validation data exists in the database. The Radeon 680M, with an active production status and three benchmark entries, is the only part with empirical backing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different AMD architectures and process nodes. The Instinct MI325X uses CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Radeon 680M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process at TSMC, built around the Rembrandt+ chip. The MI325X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 680M belongs to the Navi II IGP generation for Rembrandt Mobile.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The 680M integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding 63.0 million per square millimeter. The MI325X die is roughly five times larger in area and holds over eleven times more transistors.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI325X pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s due to the absence of ROPs, while the 680M delivers 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s for the 680M. The MI325X FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the 680M achieves 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio over its 3.379 TFLOPS FP32.

Memory systems are fundamentally different. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The 680M uses system shared memory, meaning capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all depend on the host system. This makes the 680M memory performance variable across platforms.

Clock speeds differ as well. The MI325X has a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost. The 680M has a 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Despite higher clocks, the 680M delivers far lower throughput due to fewer compute units.

Feature sets diverge significantly. The MI325X has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all marked N/A. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 12 ray tracing cores. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the 680M outputs depend on the portable device. The MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Power requirements reflect their different roles: the MI325X has a 1,000 W TDP with a 1,400 W suggested PSU, while the 680M has a 50 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16. The AMD Radeon 680M records 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS FP16.

Q: Does the Instinct MI325X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI325X. The Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the Radeon 680M?

A: The 680M scores 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 23,468 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 21,965 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving an average of 15,270.

Q: How does the Radeon 680M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 trails by 0.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 trails by 0.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM leads by 0.5 percent, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 leads by 0.7 percent.

Q: What memory configuration does the Instinct MI325X use?

A: The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8,192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 680M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two GPUs?

A: The Instinct MI325X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon 680M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins on every raw specification in the database. It holds a 5 nm process advantage over the 680M's 6 nm node. It carries 153,000 million transistors versus 13,100 million. Its 1017 mm² die dwarfs the 208 mm² die of the 680M. Compute throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, more than 24 times the 680M's 3.379 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s is orders of magnitude beyond the system shared memory of the 680M. The 256 GB HBM3e capacity on an 8,192-bit bus serves workloads requiring massive data residency. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the lane count and doubles the generation of the 680M's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. The MI325X texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is over 24 times the 680M's 105.6 GTexel/s. The 1,000 W TDP and OAM module form factor indicate a rack-mounted accelerator for datacenter deployment.

The Radeon 680M wins on measured performance and practical features. It has three benchmark results in the database, while the MI325X has none. Its 57th percentile rank exceeds the MI325X's 50th. The 680M delivers 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the MI325X lacks entirely. API support sets the 680M apart: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 all function, while the MI325X lists N/A for each. The 680M offers display outputs, though dependent on the portable device, while the MI325X has no outputs. The 680M uses only 50 W versus 1,000 W, and it runs at higher base and boost clocks of 2000 MHz and 2200 MHz against the MI325X's 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz.

The 680M also holds the edge in the only recorded competitive context. Its average score of 15,270 sits within one percent of four nearest rivals, including the RTX 2060 and RX 7600, which demonstrates it can compete with older discrete GPUs in the database. The MI325X has no such competitive data.

The production status also favors the 680M, which is listed as active. The MI325X has no production status recorded. The 680M has a defined predecessor (Vega II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP), while the MI325X lists only a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) and no successor. The 680M release date of 2023-01-02 is earlier than the MI325X release date of 2024-10-09, making the MI325X the newer part by about 21 months, but newness alone does not produce benchmark evidence.

For users tracking datacenter compute accelerators, the MI325X specifications dominate. For users tracking integrated graphics in portable devices, the 680M provides the only verified performance data. The database offers no scenario where both parts appear in the same measured context, so the win breakdown rests entirely on specification comparison versus benchmark evidence.