AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

AMD Radeon 680M and AMD Radeon PRO W7400 occupy different corners of the graphics market. The 680M is an integrated GPU found in mobile processors, while the PRO W7400 is a discrete workstation card. The recorded data shows that direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are unavailable, as the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. This analysis relies on the individual benchmark results, architectural specifications, and performance characteristics documented in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 680M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both products are zero. This means there are no recorded scores from identical tests run on both products simultaneously.

The AMD Radeon 680M has three recorded benchmark scores. It scores 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 23468 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 21965 in Geekbench Vulkan. These results place the 680M at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15270. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with an average score of 15283 and a delta of -0.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 with an average score of 15290 and a delta of -0.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM with an average score of 15199 and a delta of 0.5 percent, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 with an average score of 15171 and a delta of 0.7 percent. These small delta percentages indicate that the 680M performs within a narrow band around these discrete desktop graphics cards, despite being an integrated solution.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its percentile rank is 50. The nearest rivals array is empty for this product. Without recorded scores, no direct numerical comparison can be made between the two products in terms of benchmark performance.

The absence of head-to-head data means that any comparison between the 680M and the PRO W7400 must rely on their architectural and specification differences rather than direct test results.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 680M wins in terms of having measurable benchmark performance. Its average benchmark score of 15270 places it at the 57th percentile, which indicates that it outperforms a majority of GPUs in the database. The 680M also shows strong compute results in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with scores of 23468 and 21965 respectively. These results suggest that the 680M handles general-purpose compute and graphics API workloads effectively for an integrated part.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in terms of raw specification counts. It has 1792 shading units versus 768 for the 680M, 112 texture mapping units versus 48, and 64 render output units versus 32. The PRO W7400 also has 28 ray tracing cores compared to 12 for the 680M. The FP32 compute rating for the PRO W7400 is 7.885 TFLOPS, which is more than double the 3.379 TFLOPS of the 680M. The texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s, while the pixel rate is identical at 70.40 GPixel/s for both.

The PRO W7400 has dedicated memory. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. The 680M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This gives the PRO W7400 a significant advantage in memory capacity and bandwidth, which matters for workstation workloads that require large datasets.

The PRO W7400 also has a higher transistor density at 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter versus 63.0 million for the 680M, despite having a slightly smaller die size of 204 square millimeters versus 208 square millimeters.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the more capable GPU on paper. Its doubled shading unit count, higher FP32 throughput, dedicated GDDR6 memory, and larger number of ray tracing cores position it as a stronger performer for compute-heavy and graphics-intensive tasks. The 680M, while producing measurable benchmark scores that rival older discrete GPUs, is fundamentally limited by its integrated nature and shared memory architecture.

The PRO W7400 targets professional applications. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth supports large textures and complex scenes. The 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W makes it a low-power discrete option. The single-slot form factor and compact dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width fit into space-constrained workstation builds. Four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide multi-display capability.

The 680M serves a different purpose. As an integrated GPU with a 50 W TDP, it requires no separate card and draws from system memory. Its benchmark scores, particularly the Geekbench OpenCL result of 23468, show that it delivers respectable compute performance for an IGP. The 57th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms many discrete GPUs in the database, including older models like the GTX 580 and RTX 2060 by small margins.

Users who need a discrete workstation card with dedicated memory and higher compute throughput should select the PRO W7400. Users who rely on integrated graphics in a mobile or compact system and need decent compute performance without a separate card should consider the 680M. The PRO W7400 offers more raw processing power, while the 680M offers measurable performance in a zero-footprint package.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has FP32 compute of 7.885 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 680M has 3.379 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon 680M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 13,300 million transistors, while the AMD Radeon 680M has 13,100 million transistors.

Q: What benchmark scores does the AMD Radeon 680M have?

A: The 680M scores 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 23468 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 21965 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What is the pixel rate for each GPU?

A: Both the AMD Radeon 680M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 have a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture. Its generation is listed as Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile). The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Both GPUs are manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The 680M has a die size of 208 square millimeters, while the PRO W7400 has a die size of 204 square millimeters. Transistor density is 63.0 million per square millimeter for the 680M and 65.2 million per square millimeter for the PRO W7400.

The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has tensor cores.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the PRO W7400 achieves higher throughput due to its larger shader count.

FP16 performance also differs. The 680M delivers 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

The 680M is an integrated GPU with no slot width, no power connectors, and display outputs that are portable device dependent. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 680M was released on January 2, 2023, and its predecessor is Vega II IGP with successor Navi III IGP. The PRO W7400 was released on August 2, 2025, and its predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no successor listed.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 680M and AMD Radeon PRO W7400 differ in several key specifications. The 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and boost clock of 1100 MHz. The PRO W7400 memory clock is 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the 680M memory clock is system shared.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The 680M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading unit count is 768 for the 680M and 1792 for the PRO W7400. TMU count is 48 versus 112, and ROP count is 32 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 12 versus 28.

FP32 performance is 3.379 TFLOPS for the 680M and 7.885 TFLOPS for the PRO W7400. FP16 performance is 6.758 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio for the 680M and 7.885 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio for the PRO W7400. Texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, while pixel rate is identical at 70.40 GPixel/s.

TDP is 50 W for the 680M and 55 W for the PRO W7400. The 680M is an IGP with no slot width, while the PRO W7400 is single-slot. Power connectors are none for both. The suggested PSU is null for the 680M and 250 W for the PRO W7400. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both.

Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 680M and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the PRO W7400. The PRO W7400 has physical dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the 680M has no listed dimensions.

Transistor count is 13,100 million for the 680M and 13,300 million for the PRO W7400. Die size is 208 square millimeters versus 204 square millimeters. Transistor density is 63.0 million per square millimeter versus 65.2 million per square millimeter.