AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 680M and AMD Radeon RX 7600 occupy entirely different tiers of the graphics market, and benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gap, with the RX 7600 winning all three head-to-head tests by substantial margins. The 680M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for mobility, while the RX 7600 is a dual-slot discrete add-in board, and their average benchmark scores—15,270 for the 680M versus 15,171 for the RX 7600—are remarkably close despite the raw performance disparity, a quirk driven by the 680M’s strong showing in Geekbench Vulkan and the RX 7600’s lower scores in legacy DirectX tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M edges out the RX 7600 in average benchmark score, posting 15,270 against the RX 7600’s 15,171, a difference of 0.7 percent. This is despite the RX 7600 winning every head-to-head test, illustrating that aggregate scores can mask performance distribution.

Q: How large is the RX 7600’s lead in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The RX 7600 scores 2,310 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 83.6 percent higher than the 680M’s 378. This is the largest delta between the two across all shared benchmarks, showing a massive gap in modern DirectX 12 workloads.

Q: In which test does the 680M come closest to the RX 7600?

A: The 680M is closest in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 21,965 versus the RX 7600’s 34,401, a 36.2 percent deficit. This suggests the 680M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture handles Vulkan relatively better than it does DirectX 12 or OpenCL.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count between the two?

A: The RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, which is more than double the 680M’s 768. This hardware advantage directly contributes to the RX 7600’s higher pixel and texture rates.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Despite the architectural generation gap, API feature parity is complete, so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Q: What is the RX 7600’s launch MSRP?

A: The RX 7600 has a launch MSRP of 269 USD. The 680M has no listed launch MSRP, as it is an integrated processor component rather than a standalone retail product.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations, and the architectural split is stark. The 680M uses RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process, built on the Rembrandt+ chip with a die size of 208 mm² and 13,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The RX 7600 moves to RDNA 3.0 on the same 6 nm TSMC node, but uses the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish) with a slightly smaller die at 204 mm², 13,300 million transistors, and a higher density of 65.2M per mm². The transistor count difference is marginal, but the architectural efficiency gains are not.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The 680M packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), 32 render output units (ROPs), and 12 ray tracing cores. The RX 7600 nearly triples the shading units to 2,048, doubles TMUs to 128, doubles ROPs to 64, and more than doubles ray tracing cores to 32. Clock behavior also differs: the 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz, while the RX 7600 runs a lower base of 1720 MHz but boosts to 2655 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz. The RX 7600’s higher boost clock, combined with its wider core count, drives its compute advantage.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 680M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, tying performance to the host platform’s RAM. The RX 7600 has dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is critical for sustained performance, as the 680M’s bandwidth is not fixed and can bottleneck under load. The RX 7600 also has a separate memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), whereas the 680M’s memory clock is listed as system shared.

Power and physical design reinforce the gap. The 680M is an IGP with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and no slot width, designed to be integrated into a portable device. The RX 7600 is a dual-slot card with a 165 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. It measures 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The RX 7600 also has fixed display outputs—1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1—while the 680M’s outputs are portable device dependent. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7600 wins all three shared benchmarks, but the margins vary by workload type. The most extreme result is in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the RX 7600 scores 2,310 against the 680M’s 378, a delta of -83.6 percent from the 680M’s perspective. This is a modern DirectX 12 test, and the RX 7600’s RDNA 3.0 architecture with 2,048 shading units simply overwhelms the 680M’s 768-unit RDNA 2.0 design. The 680M’s score is above the 57th percentile of all GPUs, but it is not competitive in this metric.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600 extends its lead with 88,051 points versus 23,468 for the 680M, a 73.3 percent deficit for the 680M. OpenCL is a compute-heavy workload, and the RX 7600’s 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the 680M’s 3.379 TFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story: 339.8 GTexel/s for the RX 7600 versus 105.6 GTexel/s for the 680M. The RX 7600’s pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s is more than double the 680M’s 70.40 GPixel/s.

The closest contest is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 7600 scores 34,401 against 21,965 for the 680M, a 36.2 percent gap. This narrower delta suggests the 680M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture has relatively strong Vulkan efficiency, possibly due to its lower power envelope and shared memory design that reduces overhead in certain API calls. Still, the RX 7600 wins decisively. Across all three tests, the RX 7600’s win count is 3 to 0, and it also leads in average benchmark score when considering the full passmark suite, where it posts 16,634 in G3D and 8,790 in GPU compute—metrics the 680M does not have listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark, making it the choice for any workload requiring raw graphics throughput. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad lead of 83.6 percent and OpenCL lead of 73.3 percent are not incremental—they represent a generational leap in compute capability. The RX 7600’s 2,048 shading units, 32 ray tracing cores, and 288.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth are the hardware foundations for this dominance, and its 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 output is over six times the 680M’s 3.379 TFLOPS.

The 680M is not without merit, but its role is constrained by its design. As an IGP with a 50 W TDP and system-shared memory, it is built for portability and power efficiency, not peak performance. Its average benchmark score of 15,270 is nearly identical to the RX 7600’s 15,171, but this is misleading; the 680M’s score is buoyed by a strong Geekbench Vulkan result relative to its compute ceiling, while the RX 7600’s average is pulled down by low passmark legacy DirectX scores that do not appear in the head-to-head list. For a buyer choosing between a laptop with an integrated 680M and a desktop with an RX 7600, the RX 7600 is the only option for gaming or GPU-intensive tasks. The 680M should be considered only for ultra-mobile systems where the 165 W TDP and dual-slot footprint of the RX 7600 are impossible to accommodate.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every hardware specification. The 680M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Rembrandt+ chip, while the RX 7600 uses RDNA 3.0 on Navi 33. The 680M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores; the RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Clock speeds diverge: the 680M has a 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the RX 7600 has a 1720 MHz base, 2655 MHz boost, and 2250 MHz game clock. Memory is the biggest split—the 680M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, whereas the RX 7600 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Compute rates differ: the 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.75 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). Pixel and texture rates are 70.40 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s for the 680M versus 169.9 GPixel/s and 339.8 GTexel/s for the RX 7600. Power consumption is 50 W for the 680M versus 165 W for the RX 7600, and the RX 7600 requires a single 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the 680M has none. The RX 7600 is dual-slot with fixed display outputs; the 680M is an IGP with portable device dependent outputs. Both share the same process node, foundry, transistor count range, bus interface, and API support.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins in every measurable benchmark category, so its advantage is absolute for performance-oriented tasks. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it is 83.6 percent faster, making it the clear choice for modern DirectX 12 gaming. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 73.3 percent faster, which translates to compute workloads like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. Its higher pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s) and texture rate (339.8 GTexel/s) mean it handles high-resolution textures and multi-sample anti-aliasing without dropping frames. The RX 7600’s dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also prevents bandwidth starvation in large asset streaming scenarios, a limitation the 680M cannot escape with its system-shared design.

The 680M’s only wins are qualitative. Its 50 W TDP is one-third of the RX 7600’s 165 W, making it viable for fanless or low-power designs where the RX 7600’s dual-slot cooler and 8-pin connector are nonstarters. Its IGP form factor means no additional card length or height—the RX 7600 is 204 mm long and 115 mm tall—so the 680M fits in ultra-thin laptops or mini PCs. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965, while 36.2 percent lower than the RX 7600’s, is still respectable for an integrated part and suggests it can handle Vulkan-based titles at modest settings. In the aggregate, however, the 680M’s average score of 15,270 is statistically tied with the RX 7600’s 15,171, but that parity is an artifact of test selection; the RX 7600’s passmark G3D score of 16,634 and compute score of 8,790 are far beyond anything the 680M lists. For any user who can accommodate a discrete card, the RX 7600 is the winner. The 680M is for systems where the card simply cannot fit.