AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

The Verdict

The database places these two products at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The AMD Radeon 680M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) inside a mobile chip, designed for portability and everyday rendering tasks. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is a server-class accelerator module with a 1100 W power target, aimed at data center compute workloads. The single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the NVIDIA part scoring 369831 against the AMD part's 23468, a delta of 93.7% in favor of NVIDIA. The AMD part sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 100th percentile. Anyone building a thin-and-light laptop with modest graphics needs should pick the AMD 680M, while anyone assembling a high-density compute node or AI server should pick the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC. There is no meaningful overlap in their intended use cases, and the performance gap is so wide that cross-shopping them would only happen by mistake.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M wins in every scenario that requires low power and integration. Its 50 W TDP means it can be embedded directly into a processor package with no separate power connectors and no add-in card slot. It uses system shared memory, so the bandwidth and capacity scale with whatever RAM the host laptop has. It supports PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for an IGP that only needs to move framebuffer data. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it can drive the built-in panel of a laptop or a compact mini-PC. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for mainstream gaming and content creation software.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 369831 is more than 15 times higher than the AMD part's 23468. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. That memory subsystem alone dwarfs the entire AMD IGP. The NVIDIA part has 18944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, and 592 texture mapping units. It uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface and requires a 1500 W suggested PSU. It has no display outputs, so it is strictly a compute accelerator. The data shows it leads the nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, by 7% in average benchmark score, and it leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%. For training large models or running massive parallel simulations, the B300 SXM6 AC is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 680M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its chip is called Rembrandt+, and it belongs to the Navi II IGP generation for Rembrandt Mobile. The die measures 208 mm² and contains 13,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². It has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores. Its base clock is 2000 MHz with a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s, texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 3.379 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 6.758 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it depends on the host's RAM.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. Its chip is called GB110, and it belongs to the Server Blackwell generation. The die is enormous at 1628 mm², housing 208,000 million transistors, for a density of 127.8 million per mm². It has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. Ray tracing core count is not listed. Its base clock is 1665 MHz with a boost clock of 2032 MHz. The pixel rate is 48.77 GPixel/s, texture rate is 1,202.9 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 76.99 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is also 76.99 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, driving the 288 GB HBM3e stack. The NVIDIA part has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support listed, which is typical for a pure compute accelerator.

The transistor density difference is notable: NVIDIA packs 127.8 million transistors per mm² versus AMD's 63.0 million per mm², despite NVIDIA using a larger 1628 mm² die. The 5 nm process versus 6 nm process partially explains this, but the architectural priorities differ as well. AMD's IGP is built for power efficiency and graphics output, while NVIDIA's module is built for massive parallel compute and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which product has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has an average benchmark score of 369831, while the AMD Radeon 680M has an average of 15270. The NVIDIA part sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, the AMD part at the 57th.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M uses system shared memory, so its size and bandwidth are dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has 288 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement for each product?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a 1100 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1500 W.

Q: Which product supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: How does the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 10.4%, the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%, and the NVIDIA L40S by 25% in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 23468, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369831. The delta is 93.7% in favor of NVIDIA. That is a 15.8 times difference in raw compute output. The AMD part's score places it just below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, delta 0.1% against AMD) and just above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199, delta 0.5% for AMD). The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, by contrast, sits far above its nearest rivals: 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 25% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

The AMD part's other benchmarks, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (378) and Geekbench Vulkan (21965), have no corresponding scores for the NVIDIA part, so they cannot be compared directly. The NVIDIA part has no DirectX or Vulkan support listed, which aligns with its lack of display outputs. The data indicates that the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is not designed for graphics rendering in the traditional sense, but for compute acceleration where OpenCL-style workloads dominate.

The FP32 throughput difference reinforces the OpenCL result. The NVIDIA part delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD part delivers 3.379 TFLOPS, a 22.8 times difference. Texture rate shows a similar gap: 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s, an 11.4 times difference. Interestingly, the AMD part has a higher pixel rate (70.40 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s), which reflects its ROP configuration and graphics-oriented design. The AMD part has 32 ROPs versus NVIDIA's 24, and the AMD boost clock (2200 MHz) exceeds NVIDIA's (2032 MHz). These factors matter for traditional rasterization, but they are irrelevant for the massive compute workloads the NVIDIA part targets.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon 680M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses Blackwell Ultra on a 5 nm process. The AMD chip is Rembrandt+, the NVIDIA chip is GB110. The die sizes are 208 mm² versus 1628 mm², and transistor counts are 13,100 million versus 208,000 million. Transistor density is 63.0M per mm² versus 127.8M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: AMD base 2000 MHz, boost 2200 MHz; NVIDIA base 1665 MHz, boost 2032 MHz. Memory is system shared for AMD versus 288 GB HBM3e for NVIDIA. The bus width is system shared versus 8192 bit, and bandwidth is system dependent versus 8.19 TB/s. The memory clock is system shared versus 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

Compute units differ substantially: AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no listed ray tracing cores, and 592 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s for AMD versus 48.77 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.379 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical characteristics are also divergent. AMD has a 50 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. NVIDIA has a 1100 W TDP, an SXM Module slot width, no listed power connectors, and a 1500 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD versus no outputs for NVIDIA. API support: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. Release dates are January 2, 2023 for AMD and September 10, 2025 for NVIDIA. The AMD part's predecessor is Vega II IGP and successor is Navi III IGP. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Hopper and successor is Server Rubin.

The only common field where AMD wins is pixel rate and ROP count, which are graphics-specific metrics. Every other compute-oriented field heavily favors NVIDIA. The data confirms that these are not competing products; they are complementary solutions for entirely different market segments.