AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Steam Machine GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two AMD GPUs is uneven. The Radeon 680M has three recorded benchmark results, while the Steam Machine GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This makes direct comparison incomplete, but the available data still provides a useful reference point.

The AMD Radeon 680M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378. In Geekbench OpenCL, it reaches 23,468 points, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 21,965. These results place the 680M at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15,270.

The Steam Machine GPU holds a 50th percentile ranking, though this is based on no recorded benchmark results. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0 in the database, which reflects the absence of test data rather than actual performance. The lack of scores means the head-to-head comparison cannot be completed numerically.

For context on the 680M, its closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with an average score of 15,283 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 with 15,290 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM with 15,199 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 with 15,171 (0.7% lower). These deltas show the 680M sits within a tight performance cluster around the 15,200 to 15,300 average score range. The differences are small, with the largest gap being 0.7% against the RX 7600. This indicates the 680M is competitive with these discrete GPUs in aggregate benchmark performance, despite being an integrated graphics processor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different RDNA generations. The Radeon 680M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Rembrandt+ chip, and belongs to the Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) generation. The Steam Machine GPU uses RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, carrying the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Console GPU (Valve) generation.

Both devices are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process node. The 680M has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The Steam Machine GPU has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per mm². The transistor counts are nearly identical, differing by only 200 million, but the Steam Machine GPU packs them into a slightly smaller die area.

Core counts differ substantially. The 680M contains 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Steam Machine GPU has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is more than double the shading units and TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs. Ray tracing cores also diverge: the 680M has 12, while the Steam Machine GPU has 28. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed.

Clock behavior differs. The 680M runs a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Steam Machine GPU has a lower base clock of 1720 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2450 MHz, and it also lists a game clock of 2250 MHz. Memory clocks show a similar pattern: the 680M uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the Steam Machine GPU uses GDDR6 at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

The Steam Machine GPU has dedicated memory: 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This is a fundamental difference in memory architecture, with the Steam Machine GPU benefiting from dedicated high-speed VRAM.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the core and clock differences. The 680M reaches 70.40 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s. The Steam Machine GPU reaches 156.8 GPixel/s and 274.4 GTexel/s, which is more than double the pixel rate and about 2.6 times the texture rate. Floating point performance shows the largest gap: the 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS FP32, while the Steam Machine GPU delivers 17.56 TFLOPS FP32. That is roughly 5.2 times higher. FP16 rates also differ: 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) for the 680M, versus 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1) for the Steam Machine GPU. The 1:1 ratio for the Steam Machine GPU means it does not halve throughput for FP16 work.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Steam Machine GPU has display outputs listed as 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1, while the 680M lists portable device dependent outputs. The 680M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Steam Machine GPU has no bus interface listed. Thermal design power differs: the 680M is rated at 50 W, and the Steam Machine GPU at 110 W. Neither has power connectors listed. The Steam Machine GPU has physical dimensions of 156 mm length, 152 mm height, and 162 mm width.

Where Each One Wins

The available data points to clear strengths for each GPU, but the comparison is constrained by the missing benchmarks for the Steam Machine GPU.

The Steam Machine GPU wins decisively on raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 17.56 TFLOPS is about 5.2 times that of the 680M. Its texture rate of 274.4 GTexel/s is roughly 2.6 times higher, and its pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s is more than double. The dedicated 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is a major advantage over the 680M's system dependent shared memory. The 28 ray tracing cores versus 12 also favors the Steam Machine GPU for ray-traced workloads. The higher boost clock of 2450 MHz versus 2200 MHz, combined with more than double the shading units, gives the Steam Machine GPU a substantial theoretical performance ceiling.

The 680M wins on integrated efficiency and portability. It is an IGP with no slot width, meaning it occupies no expansion slot, and its 50 W TDP is less than half the Steam Machine GPU's 110 W. The 680M has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1720 MHz, which may help in lightly threaded or bursty workloads that do not sustain boost clocks. Its system shared memory approach means it draws from the host system's RAM, which can be a benefit in compact designs where dedicated VRAM is not needed or where memory capacity can be flexibly allocated.

The 680M also holds the only recorded benchmark results. Its 57th percentile ranking among all GPUs comes from actual test data, while the Steam Machine GPU's 50th percentile is based on no recorded scores. From the database's perspective, the 680M has proven performance, while the Steam Machine GPU's performance is unverified. The 680M's average benchmark score of 15,270 places it within 0.7% of the Radeon RX 7600 and within 0.1% of the RTX 2060, which indicates strong aggregate performance for an integrated part.

For users who prioritize compute density and memory bandwidth in a console form factor, the Steam Machine GPU's specifications are clearly superior. For users who need a low-power integrated solution with verified benchmark results, the 680M is the only one with data to support its claims.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 (680M) versus RDNA 3.0 (Steam Machine GPU)
• Chip: Rembrandt+ (680M) versus Navi 33 (Steam Machine GPU)
• Codename: None (680M) versus Hotpink Bonefish (Steam Machine GPU)
• Generation: Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) versus Console GPU (Valve)
• Transistors: 13,100 million versus 13,300 million
• Die size: 208 mm² versus 204 mm²
• Transistor density: 63.0M / mm² versus 65.2M / mm²
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 1720 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 2450 MHz
• Game clock: None versus 2250 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory size: System Shared versus 8 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus GDDR6
• Bus width: System Shared versus 128 bit
• Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 288.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 1,792
• TMUs: 48 versus 112
• ROPs: 32 versus 64
• RT cores: 12 versus 28
• Pixel rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 156.8 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 105.6 GTexel/s versus 274.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.379 TFLOPS versus 17.56 TFLOPS
• FP16: 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 50 W versus 110 W
• Slot width: IGP versus None listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus None listed
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1a, 1x DisplayPort 2.1
• Dimensions: None versus 156 mm x 152 mm x 162 mm
• Release date: 2023-01-02 versus 2026-06-28
• Predecessor: Vega II IGP versus None
• Successor: Navi III IGP versus None
• Benchmarks: 3 recorded scores versus none recorded
• Percentile: 57 versus 50
• Average benchmark score: 15,270 versus 0
• Nearest rivals: 4 listed versus none listed

Identical fields include manufacturer (AMD), process node (6 nm), foundry (TSMC), power connectors (None), DirectX version (12 Ultimate), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.4), and production status (Active). Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Steam Machine GPU. Its FP32 throughput of 17.56 TFLOPS is approximately 5.2 times the 680M's 3.379 TFLOPS. It also has 1,792 shading units versus 768, and 28 ray tracing cores versus 12.

Q: How does memory differ between the two?

A: The Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark results for the Steam Machine GPU?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the Steam Machine GPU, and its average benchmark score is 0. The 680M has three recorded results: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (378), Geekbench OpenCL (23,468), and Geekbench Vulkan (21,965).

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The 680M ranks at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Steam Machine GPU ranks at the 50th percentile, but this ranking is based on no recorded benchmark results.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Steam Machine GPU has a boost clock of 2450 MHz, while the 680M has a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Steam Machine GPU also lists a game clock of 2250 MHz.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The 680M is rated at 50 W TDP, while the Steam Machine GPU is rated at 110 W TDP. Neither has power connectors listed.

The Verdict

The data indicates two very different products. The AMD Radeon 680M is an integrated GPU with verified benchmark performance, ranking at the 57th percentile and sitting within 0.7% of the Radeon RX 7600 in average score. It operates at 50 W, uses system shared memory, and fits as an IGP with no slot width. Its release date is 2023-01-02, and it has a known predecessor (Vega II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP).

The AMD Steam Machine GPU is a console-oriented part with dramatically higher specifications but no recorded benchmark results. Its 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 28 ray tracing cores indicate a much higher performance ceiling. It draws 110 W, uses 8 GB GDDR6, and has physical dimensions of 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm. Its release date is 2026-06-28, and it has no predecessor or successor listed.

For users selecting based on verified performance data, the 680M is the only choice with recorded scores. Its 57th percentile ranking and competitive position against discrete GPUs like the RTX 2060 and RX 7600 make it a strong integrated option. For users who can rely on the Steam Machine GPU's specification sheet, the compute, texture, pixel, and memory bandwidth advantages are substantial, but the absence of benchmark results leaves its real-world performance unconfirmed in the database.

The 680M suits low-power, compact systems where an integrated solution at 50 W is appropriate. The Steam Machine GPU suits a console form factor with dedicated VRAM and high throughput, provided the 110 W power draw is acceptable. The choice depends on whether verified benchmark data or theoretical specifications carry more weight for the intended use case.