AMD Radeon 540 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

The AMD Radeon 540 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the GTX 680M dominates in raw compute workloads, while the Radeon 540 counters with a more modern feature set and dramatically lower power demands. This comparison pits a 2012 flagship-class mobile GPU against a 2017 entry-level desktop part, and the results are far from straightforward.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M. The GTX 680M scores 9230 points against the Radeon 540’s 6184 points, a delta of -33% for the AMD part. This means the NVIDIA GPU is approximately 49% faster in this compute test — a substantial margin that reflects the massive difference in shading units and memory bandwidth between the two.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 680M also holds an edge in average benchmark score. Its average of 7023 points places it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 540’s average of 7673 points sits at the 41st percentile. However, these averages include different test suites — the Radeon 540 runs both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, while the GTX 680M runs Metal and OpenCL. The Vulkan score of 9162 for the Radeon 540 is remarkably close to the GTX 680M’s OpenCL result, suggesting the AMD card performs much better in modern graphics APIs than in legacy compute workloads.

The Radeon 540’s nearest rival list provides additional context. It sits just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (which averages 7723 points) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100. This places the Radeon 540 in a performance tier that includes much more modern cards, despite its modest 384 shading units. Meanwhile, the GTX 680M’s rivals include the NVIDIA T600 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (0.7% behind), showing it competes with entry-level workstation and mobile parts from a much later generation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The Radeon 540 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process node allows for a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter, packing 2,200 million transistors into a tiny 103 mm² die. In contrast, the GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. That older node achieves only 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter, requiring a massive 294 mm² die to house 3,540 million transistors.

The compute resources tell a similar story of generational difference. The GTX 680M fields 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs — roughly 3.5 times the shading units of the Radeon 540’s 384. This translates to dramatically higher theoretical throughput: 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 for the NVIDIA part versus 908.5 GFLOPS for the AMD part. The GTX 680M’s texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s is triple the Radeon 540’s 28.39 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 21.22 GPixel/s edges out the AMD card’s 18.93 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Radeon 540 uses a 32-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 running at 6 Gbps effective, yielding just 24.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 680M employs a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 at 3.6 Gbps effective, producing 115.2 GB/s — nearly five times the bandwidth. This memory advantage is critical for the GTX 680M’s OpenCL performance, as compute workloads are often bandwidth-bound.

API support reveals the Radeon 540’s modern pedigree. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 680M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon 540 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the GTX 680M lists no FP16 capability at all — a significant feature for modern compute applications.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins decisively in raw compute performance and memory throughput. Its 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 output and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth make it the clear choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads, as demonstrated by its 9230 score versus the Radeon 540’s 6184. The 4 GB frame buffer also allows it to handle larger datasets and textures than the Radeon 540’s 1 GB, which will hit capacity limits in memory-intensive tasks.

The Radeon 540 counters with efficiency and modern API support. Its 50 W TDP is half the GTX 680M’s 100 W, and it requires no external power connectors while the GTX 680M is an MXM module designed for portable devices. The Radeon 540’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is more flexible than the proprietary MXM-B form factor, allowing installation in standard desktop systems. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and FP16 throughput make it better suited for contemporary graphics workloads that leverage these features.

The Radeon 540’s Vulkan score of 9162 nearly matches the GTX 680M’s OpenCL result, suggesting that in Vulkan-based applications the AMD card closes much of the gap. However, the GTX 680M lacks a Vulkan benchmark entry in this dataset, so direct comparison in that API is unavailable. The Radeon 540’s display outputs — 2x DisplayPort 1.4a — are also more modern than the GTX 680M’s portable-device-dependent outputs, supporting higher resolutions and refresh rates on current monitors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9230 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 33% higher than the AMD Radeon 540’s 6184. This represents a roughly 49% performance advantage for the NVIDIA part in this compute workload.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The GTX 680M delivers 115.2 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Radeon 540 offers only 24.00 GB/s over a 32-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5, making the NVIDIA card nearly five times faster in bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon 540 has a TDP of 50 W, while the GTX 680M is rated at 100 W. The AMD card requires no external power connectors and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the GTX 680M uses an MXM module form factor with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon 540 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, making the AMD card newer in both DirectX and Vulkan versions.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon 540 has an average benchmark score of 7673, placing it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 680M averages 7023 points, at the 39th percentile. Despite lower raw compute, the Radeon 540’s Vulkan score boosts its average.

Q: What are the transistor density differences?

A: The Radeon 540 achieves 21.4 million transistors per mm² with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The GTX 680M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die but only 12.0 million per mm², reflecting the older 28 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 540 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 24 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 908.5 GFLOPS | 2.038 TFLOPS |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 32 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 24.00 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| TDP | 50 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

The GTX 680M leads in every raw compute specification: shading units, texture units, ROPs, FP32 throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. The Radeon 540 counters with a smaller, more efficient design, newer API support, and a standard PCIe interface. The GTX 680M’s 1344 shading units dwarf the Radeon 540’s 384, explaining its dominant OpenCL performance. However, the Radeon 540’s 14 nm process delivers 78% higher transistor density, enabling modern features like FP16 compute and Vulkan 1.3 in a package one-third the size.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. For raw compute performance in OpenCL applications, the GTX 680M is unequivocally superior — its 9230 score versus 6184 leaves no ambiguity. The 4 GB memory capacity and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth further cement its advantage for memory-intensive tasks like large dataset processing or high-resolution texture work. Anyone running legacy compute workloads should choose the NVIDIA card without hesitation.

However, the Radeon 540’s modern architecture makes it the more future-proof option. Its Vulkan 1.3 support, FP16 throughput, and 14 nm efficiency align with contemporary software trends. The 50 W TDP and standard PCIe interface make it far easier to integrate into current systems, and its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support modern displays directly. For users prioritizing compatibility with current APIs and low power consumption, the Radeon 540 is the rational pick.

The average benchmark scores tell an interesting story: the Radeon 540’s 7673 average actually exceeds the GTX 680M’s 7023, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. This is because the Radeon 540’s Vulkan score of 9162 nearly matches the GTX 680M’s best result, pulling its average upward. The GTX 680M’s percentile ranking (39th) sits below the Radeon 540’s (41st), indicating that in the broader GPU landscape, the AMD card competes slightly better overall.

Ultimately, the GTX 680M wins on brute force compute, while the Radeon 540 wins on efficiency and modern feature support. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload leverages legacy OpenCL compute or modern Vulkan graphics. For most contemporary use cases, the Radeon 540’s API support and lower power draw make it the more practical selection, despite its significant compute deficit. The GTX 680M remains a capable compute workhorse for applications that can utilize its massive shading unit count and memory bandwidth.