AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon Pro 560X Comparison

The AMD Radeon 680M and AMD Radeon Pro 560X occupy the same overall performance percentile (57th), yet their benchmark results reveal starkly different strengths. The 680M, an integrated RDNA 2.0 part from 2023, decisively outperforms the older GCN 4.0-based Pro 560X in cross-API compute tests, while the Pro 560X retains relevance through its dedicated memory and Apple-oriented Metal support. The data shows a generational leap in efficiency and raw compute, but the comparison is not a clean sweep in every workload category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two direct comparisons, and the AMD Radeon 680M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 680M scores 23,468 points against the Pro 560X’s 9,663 points, a delta of 142.9%. This is more than double the score, indicating that the integrated RDNA 2.0 chip delivers vastly superior general-purpose compute throughput. The gap is so large that the Pro 560X’s result falls below the 680M’s score by a margin greater than the Pro 560X’s own total.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 680M again leads, scoring 21,965 versus 16,819 for the Pro 560X, a 30.6% advantage. While not as lopsided as the OpenCL result, this still represents a solid victory for the newer architecture. The Vulkan test likely exercises graphics and compute paths more evenly, and the 680M’s lead here shows that its advantage is not limited to pure compute shaders.

The aggregate average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 680M averages 15,270 points, while the Pro 560X averages 15,082 points, a difference of 188 points. Interestingly, the 680M’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283, -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290, -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15,199, +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15,171, +0.7%). The Pro 560X’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (15,063, +0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15,171, -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15,199, -0.8%), and the AMD Radeon 680M itself (15,270, -1.2%). This places both GPUs in the same performance band, but the 680M sits at the top of that band, while the Pro 560X sits near the bottom.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two parts is fundamental. The 680M is built on RDNA 2.0 with a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro 560X uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The 680M integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a density of 63.0 million transistors per mm². The Pro 560X has only 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per mm². This means the 680M packs over four times the transistor count into a die that is less than twice the size, explaining its massive compute advantage.

The 680M features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the Pro 560X. The Pro 560X counters with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Despite having more shaders and TMUs, the Pro 560X falls behind in pixel rate (16.06 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (64.26 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s). The 680M’s higher clock speeds—2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost—drive these rates, while the Pro 560X’s clock data is not specified in the pack.

The 680M’s floating-point performance is rated at 3.379 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Pro 560X delivers 2.056 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). This means the 680M is 64% faster in FP32 and over three times faster in FP16 when the 2:1 ratio is exploited. Memory is another major differentiator. The 680M uses system-shared memory with a bus width and type also marked as "System Shared" and bandwidth "System Dependent." The Pro 560X has a dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth.

The process node difference (6 nm vs 14 nm) explains the 680M’s efficiency despite higher performance; its TDP is 50 W versus 75 W for the Pro 560X. The 680M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 560X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. In terms of API support, the 680M offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 560X provides DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 680M’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version give it greater forward compatibility for modern titles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M is the clear winner in all head-to-head benchmarks and most compute-heavy workloads. Its 142.9% lead in OpenCL makes it the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated compute tasks, from rendering to scientific simulations. The 30.6% lead in Vulkan suggests it also handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently, likely due to its RDNA 2.0 architecture and ray tracing support. For gaming with modern APIs, the 680M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support is a significant advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has specific strengths. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth is a major benefit for applications that require consistent memory performance without relying on system RAM. In a laptop context, this means the Pro 560X will not contend with the CPU for memory bandwidth, whereas the 680M’s system-shared memory can become a bottleneck in memory-intensive tasks. The Pro 560X also supports Metal (evidenced by its Geekbench Metal score of 18,763), which is not listed for the 680M, making it the only one of the two with Apple ecosystem compatibility.

The Pro 560X’s higher shading unit count (1,024 vs 768) does not translate into real-world wins in the provided data, but it may have advantages in specific workloads that favor raw shader count over clock speed. However, the 680M’s superior pixel rate (70.40 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s vs 64.26 GTexel/s) suggest that the Pro 560X’s additional units are not enough to overcome the clock speed deficit. For users on a Mac, the Pro 560X is the only choice, but for raw performance in Windows or Linux environments, the 680M dominates.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 680M in OpenCL?

A: The 680M scores 23,468 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Pro 560X’s 9,663, a 142.9% difference. This means the 680M more than doubles the Pro 560X’s score.

Q: Does the Pro 560X win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the 680M wins both. The Pro 560X has a Metal score of 18,763, but the 680M is not listed for Metal, so no direct comparison exists.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The 680M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the Pro 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 94.08 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 560X’s dedicated memory is more predictable in performance.

Q: Which GPU has higher power consumption?

A: The Pro 560X is rated at 75 W TDP, while the 680M is rated at 50 W TDP. The 680M delivers higher performance while consuming less power.

Q: Does the 680M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 680M has 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 560X has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 680M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965 versus 16,819 for the Pro 560X.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 680M | AMD Radeon Pro 560X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 94.08 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,024 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 3.379 TFLOPS | 2.056 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 16.06 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 64.26 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-02 | 2018-07-15 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 23,468 | 9,663 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 21,965 | 16,819 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 15,270 | 15,082 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 57 | 57 |