AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon RX 5500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between these two AMD parts is strikingly one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, and it wins them by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 against the Radeon 680M's 23,468, a difference of 39.4% in favor of the discrete card. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RX 5500M posts 35,693 while the 680M manages 21,965, placing the integrated part 38.5% behind. These are not narrow victories; they represent a full performance tier of separation in compute workloads.

Looking at broader averages, the gap narrows considerably. The Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15,270 across its recorded tests, placing it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 5500M averages 13,356, which lands it at the 54th percentile. This apparent contradiction, where the 680M has the higher average but loses both direct comparisons, comes from the different test suites recorded for each card. The 680M's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 378, a modern test that likely plays to the strengths of its newer architecture. The RX 5500M's average is dragged down by older Passmark DX9 through DX12 results, which score between 28 and 100, alongside a Passmark G3D score of 5,848 and a GPU compute score of 2,316.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The 680M sits within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600, 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, and 0.1% of both the GeForce RTX 2060 and GeForce GTX 580. That is remarkable company for an integrated GPU. The RX 5500M, by contrast, trades blows with much older mobile parts: its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M6100, the AMD Radeon HD 8950M, the AMD Radeon Pro 555X, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555. The delta percentages there range from -0.4% to 0.3%, meaning the RX 5500M is essentially tied with a set of GPUs from a previous hardware generation.

The data suggests that the direct head-to-head tests favor the discrete GPU, but the overall picture is more nuanced. The 680M's average score of 15,270 exceeds the RX 5500M's 13,356 by approximately 14%, and its percentile ranking is three points higher. When the database normalizes results across different test suites, the integrated part actually comes out ahead. The RX 5500M wins the two tests where both cards were recorded, but the 680M demonstrates broader competence across modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,725 is the standout result, nearly double the 680M's 23,468 in the same test. The Vulkan result of 35,693 versus 21,965 confirms that this advantage extends to graphics API workloads as well. For users running applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the RX 5500M is the clear choice. The discrete card also brings dedicated memory resources: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 680M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. For memory-bound workloads, the RX 5500M's dedicated VRAM provides a structural advantage that no driver optimization can overcome.

The AMD Radeon 680M wins in architectural modernity and overall versatility. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5500M's RDNA 1.0 architecture tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). The 680M also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 5500M. Ray tracing performance may be modest on an integrated part, but the capability exists for applications that require it. The 680M also runs on a 6 nm process node versus the RX 5500M's 7 nm node, and it packs 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, compared to 6,400 million transistors in 158 mm². The transistor density tells the story: 63.0 million per mm² for the 680M versus 40.5 million per mm² for the RX 5500M. That density advantage translates into higher efficiency and better feature support per watt.

The 680M also wins on power draw. Its TDP is 50 W, while the RX 5500M consumes 85 W. For thin-and-light laptops or systems where thermal headroom is limited, this 35 W difference is significant. The 680M is an IGP with no power connectors and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 5500M is a discrete card that also uses PCIe 4.0 x8 but requires more power to operate. The 680M's production status is Active, whereas the RX 5500M is listed as End-of-life. For new system builds, the 680M represents current hardware, while the RX 5500M is a legacy option.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is significantly faster. It scores 38,725 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 23,468 for the 680M, a 39.4% advantage. In Vulkan, the RX 5500M scores 35,693 against 21,965, a 38.5% lead.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 680M sits within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 and 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM. The RX 5500M is essentially tied with older mobile GPUs like the AMD FirePro M6100 and Radeon Pro 555X, with deltas between -0.4% and 0.3%.

Q: Does the integrated 680M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 5500M has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The RX 5500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has better average benchmark scores?

A: The 680M has a higher average benchmark score of 15,270 compared to the RX 5500M's 13,356. The 680M also ranks at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the RX 5500M's 54th percentile.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The 680M has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors. The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and also lists no power connectors, but its higher power draw means it needs more robust cooling and power delivery in a laptop chassis.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the 680M achieves a higher pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 52.64 GPixel/s for the RX 5500M. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the RX 5500M reaches 144.8 GTexel/s, while the 680M manages 105.6 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The 680M runs at a 2000 MHz base clock and 2200 MHz boost clock. The RX 5500M has a 1375 MHz base clock, a 1448 MHz game clock, and a 1645 MHz boost clock. The 680M's higher clocks partly compensate for its lower shader count. Floating point performance follows the shader count: the RX 5500M delivers 4.632 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS. FP16 performance scales similarly, with 9.265 TFLOPS for the RX 5500M and 6.758 TFLOPS for the 680M.

The process nodes differ: the 680M uses TSMC's 6 nm process, while the RX 5500M uses TSMC's 7 nm process. The 680M packs 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, achieving 63.0 million transistors per mm². The RX 5500M has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, or 40.5 million per mm². The 680M's transistor count is more than double that of the RX 5500M, reflecting its more complex architecture and integration of ray tracing hardware.

Power consumption is another clear differentiator. The 680M is rated at 50 W TDP, while the RX 5500M is rated at 85 W TDP. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces, and both are described as having portable device dependent display outputs. The RX 5500M has a game clock of 1448 MHz, a feature the 680M does not list, and its memory clock runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. The 680M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans a full generation. The 680M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Rembrandt+ chip, part of the Navi II IGP generation. The RX 5500M uses the older RDNA 1.0 architecture on the Navi 14 chip, part of the Navi Mobile RX 5000M generation. This generation difference shows up directly in feature support. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), the latest graphics API tier, while the RX 5500M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The most significant architectural addition to the 680M is ray tracing support. It includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the RX 5500M. While integrated ray tracing performance will not rival high-end discrete cards, the capability itself is a major differentiator. Games and applications that require hardware ray tracing will run on the 680M but not on the RX 5500M.

The manufacturing process also reflects the generation gap. The 680M uses a 6 nm process, allowing for a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm², versus 40.5 million per mm² for the RX 5500M's 7 nm process. This density advantage enables the 680M to pack 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, more than double the RX 5500M's 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The 680M achieves this complexity while drawing less power, 50 W versus 85 W, a signal of the efficiency gains of the newer process and architecture.

The 680M is an integrated graphics processor, built into the Rembrandt+ chip and sharing system memory. The RX 5500M is a discrete mobile GPU with its own 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. This fundamental difference in memory architecture affects bandwidth: the RX 5500M gets a fixed 224.0 GB/s from its dedicated VRAM, while the 680M's bandwidth is system dependent, varying with the host system's memory configuration. The RX 5500M's successor is not listed in the database, while the 680M's predecessor is the Vega II IGP and its successor is the Navi III IGP. The RX 5500M's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the workload and the system context. For raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is the clear winner. Its 39.4% lead in OpenCL and 38.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive margins that no other factor can overcome for users running these workloads. The dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides predictable performance that does not depend on system memory configuration. If the primary use case is GPU compute or running applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, the RX 5500M is the better choice despite its older architecture.

However, the data also shows that the Radeon 680M is the more capable overall GPU. Its average benchmark score of 15,270 exceeds the RX 5500M's 13,356, and its 57th percentile ranking versus 54th places it higher among all GPUs in the database. The 680M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 and RTX 3050 OEM, modern discrete cards, while the RX 5500M competes with a decade-old AMD FirePro M6100 and Radeon Pro 555X. The 680M also brings DirectX 12 Ultimate support, 12 ray tracing cores, and a 6 nm process with 50 W TDP. For new laptop designs or users who want modern features like ray tracing and the latest DirectX version, the 680M is the forward-looking pick.

The RX 5500M is end-of-life hardware. It was released in October 2019, while the 680M arrived in January 2023. The newer integrated part outperforms the older discrete card in average scores, consumes 35 W less power, and supports features the RX 5500M cannot offer. The RX 5500M retains a clear compute advantage in direct comparison, but that advantage comes with higher power draw, older architecture, and no ray tracing capability. For most modern use cases, the 680M is the more practical choice. The RX 5500M only makes sense for users who specifically need its compute throughput and dedicated memory and are willing to accept its legacy status and higher power requirements.