AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

The AMD Radeon 680M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM present a classic integrated-versus-discrete GPU showdown. While the 680M is a 6 nm integrated part from AMD’s Rembrandt+ line, the RTX 3050 OEM is an 8 nm discrete card from NVIDIA’s Ampere generation. Benchmark data shows the NVIDIA card dominating in every head-to-head test, yet the AMD part holds its own in the broader performance percentile, making this comparison more nuanced than a simple spec-sheet victory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M edges out the RTX 3050 OEM in average benchmark score, with 15270 versus 15199. This places both cards at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, a statistical tie in overall standing.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM scores 60740 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 61.4% higher than the Radeon 680M’s 23468. This is a massive lead for the discrete NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Radeon 680M have any benchmark wins against the RTX 3050 OEM?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the RTX 3050 OEM wins both tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon 680M records zero wins in this matchup.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Radeon 680M’s chip packs 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a density of 63.0M per mm². The RTX 3050 OEM has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, for a density of 43.5M per mm².

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 680M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system-dependent, meaning there is no fixed figure.

Q: Which GPU is listed as end-of-life?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM has a production status of "End-of-life," while the AMD Radeon 680M is listed as "Active."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the RTX 3050 OEM wins both available head-to-head tests by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card posts 60740 points against the Radeon 680M’s 23468, a delta of -61.4% for the AMD part. That is not a small edge — it is a dominant victory that reflects the RTX 3050 OEM’s dedicated memory and far higher compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a nearly identical story: the RTX 3050 OEM scores 57103, while the Radeon 680M manages 21965, a gap of -61.5%. Both deltas are essentially identical, suggesting the NVIDIA card’s advantage is consistent across different API workloads.

However, the overall picture is more nuanced. The Radeon 680M’s average benchmark score of 15270 is actually 0.5% higher than the RTX 3050 OEM’s 15199. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that the 680M has additional benchmark scores — including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378 — that are not part of the head-to-head comparisons. When all results are averaged, the two GPUs land within 0.7% of each other, with the AMD part slightly ahead. The RTX 3050 OEM’s nearest rivals list shows it trailing the 680M by 0.5%, while the 680M’s list shows it leading the RTX 3050 OEM by 0.5%. These are essentially reciprocal readings of the same data.

The RTX 3050 OEM also has a broader benchmark footprint, including Passmark scores across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. Its Passmark G3D score of 11857 and GPU compute score of 5779 demonstrate solid legacy and compute performance. The Radeon 680M lacks these Passmark entries, so its average is derived from fewer data points. This matters when interpreting the near-tie in average scores: the NVIDIA card’s lead in raw compute tests is offset by the AMD part’s strong showing in its limited test set.

The Verdict

For raw performance in compute and graphics workloads, the RTX 3050 OEM is the clear winner. Its 61.4% lead in OpenCL and 61.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and it offers a dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory pool with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth — an advantage no integrated GPU can match. Anyone needing consistent, high-throughput rendering or compute should pick the RTX 3050 OEM without hesitation.

The Radeon 680M, however, is not a poor performer. Its average benchmark score slightly exceeds the RTX 3050 OEM, and it matches the NVIDIA card at the 57th percentile among all GPUs. For users constrained by power or physical space, the 680M’s 50 W TDP and IGP form factor make it a compelling choice — it delivers comparable overall ranking with a fraction of the power draw. The RTX 3050 OEM, by contrast, requires 130 W, a dual-slot cooler, and a 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W PSU.

The production status also matters: the RTX 3050 OEM is end-of-life, while the Radeon 680M remains active. If longevity and ongoing driver support are priorities, the AMD part has the advantage. But for immediate, measurable performance, the NVIDIA card wins every head-to-head test in the data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The Radeon 680M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while the RTX 3050 OEM uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The AMD chip has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, versus 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die for NVIDIA — the AMD part is denser at 63.0M transistors per mm² versus 43.5M.

Clock speeds diverge significantly: the 680M runs at a base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, while the RTX 3050 OEM has a base of 1515 MHz and boosts to 1755 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA card has far more compute units: 2304 shading units versus 768, 72 TMUs versus 48, and 18 RT cores versus 12. The RTX 3050 OEM also has 72 tensor cores, which the 680M lacks entirely. Both have 32 ROPs.

Memory is a major differentiator. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 680M uses system-shared memory with no fixed size or bandwidth. Pixel and texture rates also differ: the 680M has a higher pixel rate at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 56.16 GPixel/s, but the RTX 3050 OEM has a higher texture rate at 126.4 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance strongly favors NVIDIA at 8.087 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS, and the RTX 3050 OEM maintains a 1:1 FP16 ratio, while the 680M uses a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical requirements are starkly different. The 680M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, while the RTX 3050 OEM is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 130 W TDP. The NVIDIA card measures 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height. Display outputs differ too: the 680M’s outputs are portable-device-dependent, while the RTX 3050 OEM offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support PCIe 4.0 x8 and the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Radeon 680M is built on RDNA 2.0, part of AMD’s Navi II IGP generation for Rembrandt Mobile. It uses a 6 nm node and is manufactured by TSMC. The RTX 3050 OEM is an Ampere-generation part from NVIDIA’s GeForce 30 series, built on Samsung’s 8 nm process. This generation difference explains much of the performance disparity: Ampere is a discrete-GPU architecture designed for high throughput, while RDNA 2.0 in this case is adapted for integrated use.

The transistor counts are similar in absolute terms — 13,100 million for AMD versus 12,000 million for NVIDIA — but the die sizes differ greatly. The Radeon 680M fits those transistors into 208 mm², while the RTX 3050 OEM needs 276 mm². This makes the AMD chip denser, but the NVIDIA chip has more room for specialized hardware like tensor cores and RT cores. The 680M has 12 RT cores, but no tensor cores; the RTX 3050 OEM has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. That tensor core count is significant for AI-accelerated workloads, a feature entirely absent from the AMD part.

Memory architecture is another fundamental difference. The 680M relies on system-shared memory, meaning its performance is dependent on the host system’s RAM speed and configuration. The RTX 3050 OEM has dedicated GDDR6 with fixed bandwidth, insulating it from system bottlenecks. This architectural distinction — integrated versus discrete memory — is the single largest factor behind the RTX 3050 OEM’s benchmark dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins in every measurable head-to-head benchmark. It dominates Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan by over 61%, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, modern gaming, and any workload that benefits from dedicated VRAM. Its 8 GB memory pool and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth ensure stable performance regardless of system RAM. The presence of tensor cores also gives it an edge in AI and ray-accelerated workloads, though the data only directly supports its OpenCL and Vulkan victories.

The Radeon 680M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 50 W TDP is less than half the RTX 3050 OEM’s 130 W, and it requires no power connectors, no extra slot, and no dedicated PSU headroom. It is an IGP, meaning it fits into any laptop or compact system without additional hardware. Its higher pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 56.16 GPixel/s suggests it may handle certain fill-rate-bound tasks competitively, even if its overall compute is lower. Its average benchmark score of 15270 slightly exceeds the RTX 3050 OEM, indicating that in the right conditions — likely with fast system memory — it can match the discrete card’s overall standing.

For builders prioritizing raw frame rates and compute throughput, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only logical choice. For those building a low-power, compact system where every watt counts, the Radeon 680M offers a surprisingly competitive average score at a fraction of the power draw. The data shows a clear trade-off: performance versus efficiency, with the RTX 3050 OEM winning the former and the Radeon 680M winning the latter.