AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 and AMD Radeon 680M occupy different corners of the GPU spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores place them within 3% of each other. The Pro W5500 is a discrete workstation card built on RDNA 1.0, while the 680M is an integrated graphics processor on RDNA 2.0. In the two head-to-head benchmark tests available, the Pro W5500 wins decisively, but the 680M counters with architectural modernity and a significantly lower power envelope. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the context of each GPU’s intended deployment is essential for interpretation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the faster GPU. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 45,615 against the 680M’s 23,468, a 94.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro W5500 posts 42,021 versus 21,965, a 91.3% lead. If raw compute throughput is the sole criterion, the W5500 is the choice. Its average benchmark score of 15,679 also edges out the 680M’s 15,270, and it holds a 58th percentile ranking versus the 680M’s 57th.

However, the 680M is not without merit. It is an active, current product, whereas the W5500 is end-of-life. The 680M’s 50 W TDP is less than half the W5500’s 125 W, making it suitable for portable or power-constrained systems. The 680M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, a feature set the W5500 lacks. For users who need a discrete card with dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory and established driver maturity, the W5500 is the data-backed pick. For those integrating graphics into a modern mobile platform, the 680M’s efficiency and API support are compelling. The verdict is not about which is “better” universally, but which fits the workload and physical constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by a full architecture generation. The Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². In contrast, the 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 6 nm process. It contains 13,100 million transistors across a 208 mm² die, achieving 63.0M per mm². The 680M’s higher density reflects the newer node and integrated design.

Core configurations differ substantially. The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer cores, the 680M achieves a higher pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 59.36 GPixel/s for the W5500, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The 680M boosts to 2200 MHz, while the W5500 boosts to 1855 MHz. Texture rate favors the W5500 at 163.2 GTexel/s against 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.224 TFLOPS for the W5500 and 3.379 TFLOPS for the 680M.

Memory architecture is a stark divider. The W5500 features 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as “System Dependent.” The W5500’s dedicated memory is a critical advantage for sustained workloads. The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the W5500. The W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro W5500 wins decisively in compute-heavy, professional applications. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 45,615 is a 94.4% improvement over the 680M. This suggests superiority in rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern: 42,021 versus 21,965, a 91.3% margin. For users running CAD, video encoding, or scientific workloads that rely on these APIs, the W5500 is the clear performer.

The 680M wins on integration and efficiency. Its 50 W TDP makes it viable for thin-and-light laptops where the W5500’s 125 W TDP and single-slot, 241 mm length would be impossible to accommodate. The 680M’s 6 nm process and 13,100 million transistors in an IGP form factor indicate a modern design optimized for power efficiency. It also supports ray tracing cores, which the W5500 lacks, and DirectX 12 Ultimate, enabling feature-rich gaming and content creation on mobile platforms. The 680M’s system-shared memory is a limitation for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but it allows for flexible memory allocation in a unified memory architecture.

In terms of benchmark breadth, the W5500 has been tested across ten benchmarks, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D and G3D tests. Its highest PassMark score is 126 in DirectX 9, and its G3D score is 8,978. The 680M has only three benchmark results available, with its strongest being a 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This limited dataset makes direct comparisons beyond OpenCL and Vulkan impossible, but the available data consistently favors the W5500 in raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500. Its FP32 throughput is 5.224 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS for the 680M, and it leads by 94.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and 91.3% in Geekbench Vulkan.

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

A: Yes. The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The Pro W5500 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The W5500 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The 680M has a 50 W TDP, compared to 125 W for the W5500. The 680M also uses a newer 6 nm process versus 7 nm for the W5500.

Q: What is the performance gap in the shared benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the W5500 scores 45,615 versus 23,468, a 94.4% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W5500 scores 42,021 versus 21,965, a 91.3% lead.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The W5500 averages 15,679 across its tests, while the 680M averages 15,270. The W5500 also holds a 58th percentile rank against all GPUs, one point higher than the 680M’s 57th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share only two benchmarks in the data set: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both are dominated by the Pro W5500, but the margins are significant enough to warrant close examination.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro W5500 scores 45,615. The 680M scores 23,468. The delta is 94.4% — the W5500 nearly doubles the 680M’s output. This is a massive gap that reflects the W5500’s dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory and higher FP32 compute of 5.224 TFLOPS. OpenCL workloads often stress memory bandwidth and raw shader throughput, areas where the W5500’s 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1,408 shading units provide a structural advantage. The 680M’s system-shared memory and 768 shading units cannot compensate, despite its higher 2200 MHz boost clock.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro W5500 again leads, scoring 42,021 against 21,965. The 91.3% delta is slightly narrower than OpenCL but still a decisive victory. Vulkan’s lower-level API can benefit from newer architecture features, and the 680M’s RDNA 2.0 design with 12 ray tracing cores might have been expected to narrow the gap. However, the data shows that raw compute resources — the W5500’s 88 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus the 680M’s 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs — matter more than architectural generation in this test. The W5500’s texture rate of 163.2 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s for the 680M likely contributes to this outcome.

The W5500’s win count is 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups. The 680M wins none. Yet the average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The W5500’s average of 15,679 is only 2.7% higher than the 680M’s 15,270. This discrepancy arises because the W5500’s benchmark suite includes ten tests, many of which are PassMark legacy DirectX tests where it scores modestly (e.g., 39 in DirectX 12, 47 in DirectX 10). The 680M’s three tests, including a 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, pull its average up relative to its head-to-head performance. This suggests that in modern, API-optimized workloads, the 680M may be more competitive than the OpenCL/Vulkan results imply, but the direct evidence still favors the W5500.

The nearest rivals for each GPU reinforce their positioning. The W5500’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, with a delta of 0.8%, indicating near-parity in average score. The 680M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, with a delta of -0.1%, and the RTX 2060 at -0.1%. This places the 680M in the same performance class as a 2010-era flagship and a 2019 mid-range card, while the W5500 trades blows with a 2017 enthusiast card. These comparisons underscore that while the 680M is efficient and modern, its integrated nature caps its absolute performance well below the discrete W5500 in compute-heavy tasks.