AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and the AMD Radeon 680M represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics, separated by architecture generation and design philosophy. The Pro 5600M, built on RDNA 1.0, is a discrete-class IGP from 2020, while the 680M, using RDNA 2.0, is a modern integrated solution from 2023. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone, as the 680M brings newer feature support and efficiency gains to the table.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits these two GPUs along clear lines of raw compute versus modern feature sets. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, with a perfect 2-0 record in winsA. Its advantage is substantial: in Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 47,783 against the 680M's 23,468, a delta of 103.6%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows even larger, with 46,425 versus 21,965, a 111.4% lead. This makes the Pro 5600M the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw number-crunching, such as compute-heavy rendering or GPU-accelerated applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan.

The AMD Radeon 680M, however, wins where the Pro 5600M cannot compete: in architectural modernity and API support. It is built on RDNA 2.0 versus the Pro 5600M's RDNA 1.0, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the Pro 5600M's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. This means the 680M is the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing cores (12 of them) and access to the latest graphics features. For users running newer games or applications that can utilize these APIs, the 680M provides a feature set the older Pro 5600M simply lacks, even if its raw execution speed is lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge fundamentally at the silicon level. The Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip on a 6 nm TSMC node. This process shrink gives the 680M a density advantage, packing 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Pro 5600M's transistor count and die size are not listed, but its older node suggests a less efficient layout.

The compute configurations are starkly different. The Pro 5600M fields 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory runs on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the 680M has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with system-shared memory that has system-dependent bandwidth. This massive difference in shading units and memory bandwidth explains the Pro 5600M's dominant performance in compute benchmarks.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The 680M runs at a base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, far higher than the Pro 5600M's 822 MHz base and 1144 MHz boost. This higher clock speed helps the 680M close some of the gap, but it cannot compensate for the 3.3x difference in shading units. The Pro 5600M also leads in texture rate (183.0 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (73.22 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s), though its pixel rate advantage is narrow. Floating-point performance follows the same trend, with the Pro 5600M delivering 5.857 TFLOPS FP32 versus the 680M's 3.379 TFLOPS.

Both GPUs share the same 50 W TDP and IGP slot width, with no power connectors, but the Pro 5600M uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface while the 680M uses a narrower PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. The Pro 5600M is end-of-life, released in mid-2020, while the 680M is active, released in early 2023, with a predecessor in Vega II IGP and a successor in Navi III IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data highlights the Pro 5600M's overwhelming compute lead. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5600M scores 47,783 against the 680M's 23,468, a 103.6% advantage. This means the Pro 5600M delivers more than double the OpenCL performance of the 680M, a massive gulf that indicates the Pro 5600M is in a different performance class for general-purpose GPU compute.

Geekbench Vulkan results are similarly lopsided. The Pro 5600M scores 46,425, while the 680M manages 21,965, a 111.4% delta. This wider margin in Vulkan suggests the Pro 5600M's higher memory bandwidth and larger shading unit count are particularly beneficial in this API, which often scales well with raw hardware resources. The 680M's modern architecture does not overcome the 2,560 versus 768 shading unit deficit.

Beyond the head-to-head, the broader benchmark data reinforces this picture. The Pro 5600M has an average benchmark score of 16,351, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs, with a Passmark G3D score of 9,279 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 4,031. The 680M's average score is 15,270, in the 57th percentile. The Pro 5600M's nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16,361 (a -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16,408 (a -0.3% delta), showing it sits right at the edge of a much more powerful class of discrete graphics. The 680M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 at 15,283 (a -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 at 15,290 (a -0.1% delta), placing it in the performance tier of older or lower-end discrete cards, despite its integrated nature.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior choice for anyone whose primary need is compute throughput. Its 103.6% lead in OpenCL and 111.4% lead in Vulkan make it the only rational pick for GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, or any other workload that stresses raw FP32 and memory bandwidth. Its 8 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage over the 680M's system-shared memory, which is entirely dependent on the host system's RAM speed and configuration.

However, the AMD Radeon 680M is not without its own case. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture, 6 nm process, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support with hardware ray tracing make it the more future-proof option for gaming and modern multimedia. The 680M's higher clock speeds (2200 MHz boost versus 1144 MHz) and newer API support mean it can handle ray-traced effects and DirectX 12 Ultimate features that the Pro 5600M cannot, even if it does so at lower overall frame rates. For users on a modern platform with fast system memory, the 680M could be a more balanced integrated solution, particularly in thinner laptops where the Pro 5600M's compute advantage is less relevant.

The production status also matters: the Pro 5600M is end-of-life, while the 680M is active with a defined successor. This suggests ecosystem support and driver optimization will increasingly favor the 680M over time. The Pro 5600M's higher percentile ranking (59th versus 57th) and average score (16,351 versus 15,270) show it is the stronger performer today, but the 680M's trajectory as an active product could narrow that gap in real-world applications that leverage newer APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is significantly faster, scoring 47,783 compared to the Radeon 680M's 23,468, a 103.6% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 680M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 680M has 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5600M has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Pro 5600M has 8 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the 680M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a boost clock of 2200 MHz, nearly double the Pro 5600M's 1144 MHz boost clock.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Pro 5600M has an average benchmark score of 16,351, placing it in the 59th percentile, while the 680M scores 15,270 on average, in the 57th percentile.

Q: Are both GPUs integrated or discrete?

A: Both are classified as IGPs (integrated graphics processors) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors, but the Pro 5600M uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface while the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.