AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two head-to-head comparisons between the AMD Radeon 680M and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, and in both instances the AMD part posts a decisive victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 680M scores 23,468 against the Quadro M2000's 14,588, a delta of 60.9% in favor of the AMD integrated graphics. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational stomping that places the 680M in a different performance tier altogether. The Vulkan result tells a similar story, with the 680M scoring 21,965 versus 14,475 for the Quadro, a 51.7% advantage.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark averages reinforces the direction of travel. The Radeon 680M carries an average benchmark score of 15,270 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro M2000 sits at 14,532. The 680M's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 57, compared to 56 for the Quadro — a narrow overall standing difference, but the head-to-head deltas are anything but narrow. The average score gap of 738 points (roughly 5.1%) understates how lopsided the actual cross-API comparisons are, because the 680M's OpenCL and Vulkan results are both far stronger than its average would suggest.

Context from nearest rivals makes the 680M's standing clearer. Its average score of 15,270 places it within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 580 (15,283) and RTX 2060 (15,290), and 0.5% ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM (15,199). The Quadro M2000's average of 14,532, meanwhile, is 0.9% ahead of the GTX 965M (14,404) and 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385), but 1.1% behind the GTX TITAN (14,373). The 680M is effectively trading blows with desktop discrete GPUs from NVIDIA's recent and not-so-recent past, while the Quadro M2000 is mired in the company of mobile and ancient desktop parts.

In raw head-to-head terms, the 680M wins both recorded tests. There are no benchmark categories where the Quadro M2000 comes out ahead, so the wins tally stands at 2–0. The OpenCL margin of 60.9% is the single largest delta in the comparison, and even the smaller Vulkan margin of 51.7% is substantial enough that no amount of driver optimization or workload tuning could plausibly flip the result. The data is unambiguous: the Radeon 680M is the faster GPU in every measured dimension.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two parts is vast, and it explains the benchmark results better than any single specification. The Radeon 680M is built on TSMC's 6 nm process and uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture, with a chip codenamed Rembrandt+. It belongs to the Navi II IGP generation for Rembrandt Mobile and packs 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M2000, by contrast, is a 28 nm part using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with the GM206 chip. It contains 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, for a density of just 12.9 million per square millimeter. The 680M crams more than four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die, and the density difference — 63.0M/mm² versus 12.9M/mm² — is a direct consequence of the process node gap.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress. The Radeon 680M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Quadro M2000 operates at a 796 MHz base and a 1163 MHz boost. The 680M's base clock is nearly double the Quadro's boost clock. That clock advantage, combined with the architectural efficiency of RDNA 2.0, drives the performance gap.

Both parts feature 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The raw count is identical, but the execution efficiency is not. The 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro M2000, which has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The 680M also supports FP16 at a 2:1 rate, delivering 6.758 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M2000 has no FP16 capability listed at all.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Radeon 680M uses system-shared memory, with the size, type, and bus width all marked as "System Shared" and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The Quadro M2000 has a dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. In a vacuum, dedicated memory with fixed bandwidth sounds advantageous, but the 680M's compute throughput more than compensates. The pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s for the 680M versus 37.22 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.379 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS — the 680M is roughly 89% ahead in raw single-precision compute.

API support also differs. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M2000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so the gap is isolated to the DirectX feature level. The 680M's ray tracing cores and 12_2 support make it a modern part, while the Quadro M2000 is a Maxwell-era product with no ray tracing capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M wins with a score of 23,468 against 14,588 for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, a delta of 60.9%.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data records two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the AMD Radeon 680M wins both. The wins tally is 2–0 in favor of the 680M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of process node and transistor count?

A: The Radeon 680M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 13,100 million transistors, while the Quadro M2000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with 2,940 million transistors. The 680M has a transistor density of 63.0M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm² for the Quadro.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the Radeon 680M has 12 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro M2000 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 680M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 680M averages 15,270, putting it within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 580 and RTX 2060, and 0.5% ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM. The Quadro M2000 averages 14,532, which is 0.9% ahead of the GTX 965M and 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11, but 1.1% behind the GTX TITAN.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category, reflecting their different generations and design goals.

• Process Node: AMD Radeon 680M is 6 nm; NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: 13,100 million versus 2,940 million.
• Die Size: 208 mm² versus 228 mm².
• Transistor Density: 63.0M / mm² versus 12.9M / mm².
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz versus 796 MHz.
• Boost Clock: 2200 MHz versus 1163 MHz.
• Memory Size: System Shared versus 4 GB GDDR5.
• Memory Type: System Shared versus GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared versus 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 105.8 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: Not applicable versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).
• Ray Tracing Cores: 12 versus none.
• Pixel Rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 105.6 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: 3.379 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) versus not available.
• TDP: 50 W versus 75 W.
• Slot Width: IGP versus Single-slot.
• Power Connectors: None for both, but the Quadro lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1).
• Production Status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release Date: 2023-01-02 versus 2016-04-07.
• Predecessor: Vega II IGP versus Quadro Kepler.
• Successor: Navi III IGP versus Quadro Pascal.
• Dimensions: Not listed versus 201 mm length and 111 mm height.
• Geekbench OpenCL: 23,468 versus 14,588.
• Geekbench Vulkan: 21,965 versus 14,475.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon 680M is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 60.9% and 51.7%, respectively, and holds a higher average benchmark score (15,270 versus 14,532). Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is also higher, at 57 compared to 56.

The 680M's advantages are structural, not marginal. It is built on a far more advanced 6 nm process, packs over four times the transistor count, runs at more than double the clock speed, and delivers nearly double the FP32 throughput. It adds ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, features the Quadro M2000 simply does not have. The Quadro's dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is its one tangible advantage, but the 680M's system-shared memory configuration does not prevent it from winning every compute benchmark in the record.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on what the data supports. The Radeon 680M is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. It is also the more power-efficient option, with a 50 W TDP versus the Quadro's 75 W, and it is an active production part rather than an end-of-life product. The Quadro M2000's only remaining arguments are its dedicated VRAM, its single-slot form factor, and its fixed DisplayPort outputs — relevant in specific workstation contexts, but not enough to offset a 60.9% OpenCL deficit.

The benchmark record is one-sided. The AMD Radeon 680M wins on every measured metric, and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 offers no countervailing victory in any test. For modern workloads that leverage Vulkan or OpenCL, the 680M is the only rational choice. The Quadro M2000 is a legacy part whose performance tier has been overtaken by an integrated GPU.