AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5700 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 and the AMD Radeon 680M represent two very different approaches to graphics processing, despite sharing a manufacturer. The Pro 5700 is a discrete solution built on the older RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the 680M is an integrated processor (IGP) based on the newer RDNA 2.0 design. The data in the database shows that the Pro 5700 holds a significant performance lead in the shared benchmark results, but the 680M offers a much more power-efficient design and modern feature set. This analysis breaks down where each part excels, how they differ architecturally, and what the recorded numbers mean for real-world use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two is stark. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins both of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Pro 5700 scores 52787, while the 680M scores 23468. That is a 124.9% advantage for the Pro 5700. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Pro 5700 scores 51289, while the 680M scores 21965, yielding a 133.5% lead. The data shows that the discrete Pro 5700 is more than double the speed of the integrated 680M in compute workloads, which makes it the clear winner for any task that relies heavily on raw GPU compute power.

However, the 680M has its own territory where it wins by default: efficiency and integration. The Pro 5700 carries a TDP of 130 W, while the 680M is rated for just 50 W. That is a massive difference. The 680M also has a smaller die size at 208 mm² compared to the Pro 5700's 251 mm², and it is built on a more advanced 6 nm process node versus the 7 nm node of the Pro 5700. The 680M is an active product, while the Pro 5700 is end-of-life. For a compact, power-constrained system like a thin-and-light laptop, the 680M is the only realistic option. The Pro 5700, with its 130 W TDP and no display outputs, is not designed for that kind of deployment. The benchmark results indicate that the 680M's lower power draw and integrated nature make it the winner in portability and system design flexibility, even though it loses every compute benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is built on the Navi 10 chip, using the RDNA 1.0 architecture. It is part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series) generation. The AMD Radeon 680M, on the other hand, uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) generation. This means the 680M is two architectural generations ahead in terms of feature support, while the Pro 5700 relies on the older design.

The process node differences are clear. The Pro 5700 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the 680M uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC. The 680M packs more transistors into a smaller space: it has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Pro 5700 has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, with a density of 41.0M per mm². The 680M is clearly the denser, more modern design.

Core counts tell a different story. The Pro 5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 680M has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is exactly one third of the shading units and TMUs, and half the ROPs, compared to the Pro 5700. This explains the massive raw performance gap, but the 680M has a feature the Pro 5700 lacks entirely: 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 5700 has no ray tracing cores listed, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_1). The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing capabilities. The 680M also has a much higher clock speed, with a base of 2000 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz, compared to the Pro 5700's base of 1243 MHz and boost of 1350 MHz. The 680M tries to compensate for its fewer cores with much higher frequencies.

Memory architecture is another major divide. The Pro 5700 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1500 MHz, or 12 Gbps effective. The 680M uses system shared memory, with its size, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. This means the 680M's memory performance varies entirely based on the host system's RAM configuration, while the Pro 5700 has fixed, predictable bandwidth. For compute-heavy tasks, the Pro 5700's dedicated memory is a decisive advantage.

The bus interface also differs. The Pro 5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Pro 5700 has no display outputs, which is unusual, while the 680M's display outputs are portable device dependent. The Pro 5700's power delivery is notable: it has a 130 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The 680M has a 50 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed, reflecting its integrated nature.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is limited to two tests, but both show the same pattern: the Pro 5700 dominates. The Geekbench OpenCL test is the first comparison. The Pro 5700 posts a score of 52787, while the 680M scores 23468. The delta is 124.9% in favor of the Pro 5700. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this result shows the Pro 5700's advantage in raw parallel processing. The 680M's 768 shading units are simply overwhelmed by the Pro 5700's 2304.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The Pro 5700 scores 51289, versus the 680M's 21965. The delta here is 133.5%. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics and compute API, and the Pro 5700's advantage grows slightly. This suggests that the Pro 5700's memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s and its dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 pool provide a meaningful benefit in Vulkan workloads, which often stress memory access patterns. The 680M's system shared memory, with its system dependent bandwidth, cannot match that.

Looking at the broader database averages, the Pro 5700 has an average benchmark score of 18189, while the 680M averages 15270. The Pro 5700's average is 19.1% higher. The Pro 5700 also sits in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 680M sits in the 57th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Pro 5700 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile, which scores 18159 with a 0.2% delta, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, which scores 18093 with a 0.5% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18373, which is 1% higher than the Pro 5700. The Intel Arc A770M scores 18383, 1.1% higher. This places the Pro 5700 in solid mid-range discrete territory, roughly on par with an RTX 2060 SUPER.

The 680M's nearest rivals are noticeably different. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scores 15283, just 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 scores 15290, also 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, 0.5% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, 0.7% lower. This shows that the 680M, despite being an integrated GPU, performs at the level of an older desktop flagship like the GTX 580 or a modern budget desktop card like the RX 7600. The data clearly indicates that the 680M is a very capable IGP, but it is still far behind the Pro 5700.

The Pro 5700 has additional benchmark records that the 680M lacks. In Passmark tests, the Pro 5700 scores 71 in DirectX 10, 78 in DirectX 11, 48 in DirectX 12, and 143 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 805, G3D is 11583, and GPU compute is 4961. The 680M only has a single additional benchmark beyond the shared Geekbench tests: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378. These extra data points show that the Pro 5700 has a much more extensive testing history, but the core comparison remains the two Geekbench tests.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 faster than the AMD Radeon 680M?

A: Yes. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5700 scores 52787 versus the 680M's 23468, a 124.9% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5700 scores 51289 versus 21965, a 133.5% lead.

Q: Why is the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 so much faster despite being older?

A: The Pro 5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the 680M's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pro 5700 also has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 680M relies on system shared memory.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 680M have any advantages over the Pro 5700?

A: Yes. The 680M has a 50 W TDP versus 130 W for the Pro 5700, uses a smaller 208 mm² die versus 251 mm², and features 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 5700 has no ray tracing cores. The 680M also has a higher boost clock of 2200 MHz versus 1350 MHz.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and has 12 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Pro 5700's average score of 18189 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159) and RTX 2060 SUPER (18093). The 680M's average score of 15270 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15290).

Q: Which GPU is better for a power-constrained system?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M, with its 50 W TDP and integrated design, is clearly intended for low-power systems. The Pro 5700 requires a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W PSU, making it unsuitable for compact, efficient builds.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification. The Pro 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0. The process node is 7 nm for the Pro 5700 and 6 nm for the 680M. Transistor counts are 10,300 million versus 13,100 million, and die sizes are 251 mm² versus 208 mm². Transistor density goes from 41.0M per mm² on the Pro 5700 to 63.0M per mm² on the 680M.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Pro 5700 has a base clock of 1243 MHz and boost of 1350 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz, with system shared memory. The memory configuration is a major differentiator: the Pro 5700 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 680M uses system dependent shared memory.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Pro 5700. It has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the 680M has 12 ray tracing cores, while the Pro 5700 has none. Pixel rates are 86.40 GPixel/s for the Pro 5700 versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the 680M. Texture rates are 194.4 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.221 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 12.44 TFLOPS versus 6.758 TFLOPS (both listed as 2:1 ratios).

Power consumption is a clear split. The Pro 5700 draws 130 W, while the 680M draws 50 W. The Pro 5700 suggests a 300 W PSU, while the 680M has no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the Pro 5700 and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 680M. The Pro 5700 has no display outputs, while the 680M's outputs are portable device dependent. The Pro 5700 is end-of-life, while the 680M is active. The 680M has a predecessor listed as Vega II IGP and a successor as Navi III IGP, while the Pro 5700 has neither. The 680M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Pro 5700 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The choice between these two is dictated by the system design, not by raw performance. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is the definitive winner in compute performance. It doubles the 680M's scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan, with deltas of 124.9% and 133.5% respectively. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, high-speed access that the 680M cannot replicate with system shared memory. Its average benchmark score of 18189 places it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER and RTX 3060 Mobile. Anyone building a workstation or a system that requires maximum GPU compute power should choose the Pro 5700, provided the 130 W TDP and 300 W PSU requirement are acceptable.

The AMD Radeon 680M is the choice for efficiency and modern features. Its 50 W TDP is less than half that of the Pro 5700, making it ideal for laptops and compact systems. It is built on a smaller, denser 6 nm process with 13,100 million transistors, and it includes 12 ray tracing cores with DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The Pro 5700 cannot handle hardware ray tracing at all. The 680M's performance, with an average score of 15270, sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 and GTX 580, which is exceptional for an integrated GPU. Users who need a capable GPU without a discrete card, and who value power efficiency and modern API support, should pick the 680M.

The data is unambiguous: the Pro 5700 wins every benchmark contest, but the 680M wins the efficiency and feature war. The right pick depends entirely on whether raw compute throughput or low power and modern features matter more. For pure performance, the Pro 5700. For integrated efficiency, the 680M.