AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon Pro 555X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon 680M and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X across the shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 680M scores 23,468 points against 12,628 for the Pro 555X, a delta of 85.8% in favor of the newer integrated part. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a near-doubling of raw compute throughput in a synthetic workload that stresses general-purpose GPU computation.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The 680M achieves 21,965 points, while the Pro 555X manages 12,855. The delta here is 70.9% in favor of the 680M. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the results indicate that the 680M’s architecture extracts significantly more performance per clock and per watt in this workload. The Pro 555X, built on older GCN 4.0, simply cannot keep pace.

The head-to-head tally is unambiguous: the 680M wins both recorded comparisons, giving it a 2-0 record. The Pro 555X has no benchmark wins in this dataset. For context, the 680M’s average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 15,270, which places it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Pro 555X averages 13,321 across its tests, sitting at the 54th percentile. While the percentile gap appears modest, the raw score difference in shared tests is substantial.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each part reinforces the positioning. The 680M’s average score of 15,270 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290). It is 0.5% ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM (15,199) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15,171). These are all discrete desktop or mobile GPUs from later generations, yet the integrated 680M is competitive with them in aggregate scoring. The Pro 555X, by contrast, sits at 13,321, which is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (13,300) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354). It trails the RX 5500M (13,356) by 0.3% and the Radeon HD 8950M (13,376) by 0.4%. The Pro 555X is essentially trading blows with hardware from the early 2010s and mid-range mobile parts from several generations ago.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The 680M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Rembrandt+, integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The Pro 555X uses GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its Polaris 21 chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The 680M packs over four times the transistor count into a die that is only about 69% larger, a direct result of the denser process node.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Pro 555X has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its memory runs at 1470 MHz with 5.9 Gbps effective. The 680M uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The Pro 555X has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference: the 680M relies on the host system’s memory, while the Pro 555X has its own dedicated VRAM. In practice, dedicated memory can reduce latency, but the 680M’s much higher compute throughput appears to overcome any memory subsystem disadvantage in the recorded benchmarks.

The compute units reveal the core difference in capability. Both parts have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. The 680M has 32 ROPs, while the Pro 555X has only 16. This directly explains the pixel rate gap: the 680M delivers 70.40 GPixel/s, while the Pro 555X manages just 14.51 GPixel/s. The texture rates also diverge, with the 680M at 105.6 GTexel/s versus 43.54 GTexel/s for the Pro 555X. In terms of floating-point performance, the 680M achieves 3.379 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Pro 555X delivers 1,393.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.39 TFLOPS). The 680M also supports FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Pro 555X is capped at 1,393.2 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it offers no half-precision advantage.

The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 555X. This gives the 680M hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability, which the older GCN part lacks. API support also differs. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 555X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 680M’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its more modern architecture. The bus interface also shows progress: the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 555X uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Power consumption favors the 680M despite its performance advantage. The 680M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Pro 555X is rated at 75 W. The 680M delivers roughly double the FP32 throughput while consuming two-thirds of the power. Both are integrated parts with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The production status tells a story of lifecycle: the 680M is Active, released in early 2023, while the Pro 555X is End-of-life, released in mid-2018. The 680M succeeds the Vega II IGP and is succeeded by Navi III IGP, while the Pro 555X has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The 680M wins outright in every recorded benchmark, making it the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 85.8% lead in OpenCL indicates strong general-purpose compute performance, useful for tasks like rendering, physics simulation, and data processing that leverage GPU compute. The 70.9% lead in Vulkan suggests it handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency, making it suitable for gaming and real-time 3D applications that use Vulkan.

The Pro 555X’s advantages are not in raw performance. Its 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth is a structural benefit. For applications that require consistent memory availability without competing with the CPU for system RAM, the dedicated memory could be preferable. The Pro 555X also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, which means it treats half-precision and full-precision workloads identically, whereas the 680M’s 2:1 ratio means FP16 runs at half rate. For workloads that specifically need FP16 at full precision, the Pro 555X’s behavior might be more predictable, though its absolute FP16 throughput is far lower.

The 680M’s 12 ray tracing cores give it a feature that the Pro 555X cannot match. Any workload that uses hardware ray tracing, whether in game engines or professional visualization, will only run on the 680M. The Pro 555X would require software fallbacks, which are typically slower. The 680M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support also means it can handle the latest graphics features, while the Pro 555X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), which lacks some of the newer features like mesh shaders and variable-rate shading.

The Pro 555X’s end-of-life status means it is no longer produced, so the only practical consideration is for users who already own it or find it in legacy systems. The 680M is actively produced, indicating ongoing availability in current hardware. The Pro 555X’s 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 architecture are from 2016-2018 era technology, and the recorded data shows it performs at the level of the NVIDIA GTX 480, a GPU from 2010. The 680M, by contrast, performs near the level of the RTX 2060, a mid-range GPU from 2019.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 680M is the superior GPU. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 85.8% and 70.9%, has a higher average benchmark score (15,270 vs 13,321), a higher percentile ranking (57th vs 54th), and consumes less power (50 W vs 75 W). It also brings modern features like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a newer process node. Users who need maximum compute performance, modern API support, or ray tracing capability should choose the 680M without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X is only preferable in one specific scenario: if a system requires dedicated VRAM and the workload is sensitive to memory contention. Its 4 GB GDDR5 configuration with fixed bandwidth may be more reliable in certain professional applications that expect a dedicated memory pool. However, the data shows that even with this advantage, the Pro 555X delivers far lower compute throughput. Its FP16 1:1 ratio is a minor consideration, but the absolute performance is so much lower that it rarely compensates.

For new purchases, the 680M is the clear choice. For legacy systems, the Pro 555X remains functional but is severely outclassed. The 680M’s active production status and successor line ensure ongoing driver support and availability. The Pro 555X is end-of-life, which means no future optimizations are likely. The verdict is unambiguous: the 680M wins on performance, efficiency, and features.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 680M than the AMD Radeon Pro 555X in OpenCL?

A: The 680M scores 23,468 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Pro 555X scores 12,628. This is a delta of 85.8% in favor of the 680M.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555X have any ray tracing capability?

A: No. The Pro 555X has no ray tracing cores, while the 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores. Any hardware-accelerated ray tracing workload will only run on the 680M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 680M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Pro 555X has a TDP of 75 W. The 680M delivers higher performance while consuming less power.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The 680M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent, while the Pro 555X has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The 680M scores 21,965 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 12,855 for the Pro 555X, a delta of 70.9% in favor of the 680M.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU in the database?

A: The 680M’s average score of 15,270 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 and RTX 2060. The Pro 555X’s average of 13,321 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 and AMD FirePro M6100.