AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The database comparison between the AMD Radeon 680M and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a study in extremes. The Radeon 680M is an integrated graphics processor designed for mobile devices, while the Rubin GPU is a server-class accelerator built for compute density. Their benchmark profiles reflect this fundamental divide.

The AMD Radeon 680M delivers measurable results in standardized graphics and compute tests. Its recorded measurements show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23468, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 21965. The average benchmark score across these tests sits at 15270, placing the IGP at the 57th percentile of all GPUs in the database. This means it outperforms more than half of the recorded GPU population, a strong result for an integrated solution.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it holds the 50th percentile ranking, which is the median position by default when no performance data exists. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, with zero wins recorded for either side. This absence of measurement data does not indicate a lack of capability; rather, it reflects that the Rubin GPU has not yet been subjected to the same standardized testing suite in the database.

Based on available data, the Radeon 680M is the only one of the two with verified performance figures. It wins in every category where a score exists, simply because the Rubin GPU has no comparable entries. For any use case that relies on documented benchmark results, the Radeon 680M is the sole option with supporting evidence.

Architecture Differences

The two processors occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi II IGP generation for Rembrandt Mobile platforms. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,100 million transistors packed into a 208 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 63.0 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip built on the Rubin architecture, part of the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 336,000 million transistors across a 1456 mm² die. The transistor density climbs to 230.8 million per square millimeter. The Rubin GPU packs over 25 times more transistors into a die roughly seven times larger.

The Radeon 680M features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores. The Rubin GPU features 28,672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, and 896 tensor cores. Its ray tracing core count is not listed in the database. The shading unit count difference is roughly 37-fold, and the texture mapping unit difference is about 18-fold.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Radeon 680M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a much lower base clock of 700 MHz but boosts to 2267 MHz, which is slightly higher than the AMD part. Memory configurations are entirely different. The Radeon 680M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth, operating at an effective 10.8 Gbps.

Compute throughput is where the gap becomes enormous. The Radeon 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 6.758 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS of FP16. That is roughly 38 times the FP32 throughput and 38 times the FP16 throughput. Pixel rates tell a different story: the Radeon 680M achieves 70.40 GPixel/s while the Rubin GPU achieves 54.41 GPixel/s, meaning the smaller AMD part actually has a higher pixel fill rate. Texture rates favor the Rubin GPU heavily at 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ completely. The Radeon 680M carries a 50 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP with PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Rubin GPU carries a 2300 W TDP, uses an SXM Module slot, and requires a suggested power supply of 2700 W. It connects via PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs on the Radeon 680M are portable device dependent, while the Rubin GPU has no display outputs at all.

API support diverges. The Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for traditional graphics API workloads. The production status for both is listed as Active. The Radeon 680M was released in January 2023, while the Rubin GPU carries a late December 2025 release date. The Radeon 680M's predecessor is the Vega II IGP and its successor is the Navi III IGP. The Rubin GPU's predecessor is Server Blackwell, with no successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, so there are no direct comparison scores to walk through. However, the individual benchmark data for the Radeon 680M allows for indirect analysis against the Rubin GPU's absence of measurements.

The Radeon 680M's nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. Its average benchmark score of 15270 sits within a narrow band of comparable GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 averages 15283, which is 0.1% ahead of the Radeon 680M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 averages 15290, also 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15199, which is 0.5% behind the Radeon 680M. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15171, sitting 0.7% behind. This cluster of results places the Radeon 680M in the company of dedicated desktop graphics cards, an impressive positioning for an integrated processor.

The Geekbench OpenCL score of 23468 indicates strong general-purpose compute performance. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 21965 shows solid graphics API throughput. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378 reflects modern DirectX 12 workload handling. These three measurements together form the basis of the 15270 average.

The Rubin GPU has no such measurements. Its percentile ranking of 50 in the absence of data means it sits at the median by definition, not by demonstrated performance. The average benchmark score of 0 confirms that no standardized tests have been recorded. Until the database contains Rubin GPU results, any quantitative performance comparison between the two remains incomplete.

The pixel rate comparison offers one concrete data point. The Radeon 680M delivers 70.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This suggests the AMD IGP has an advantage in raw pixel output, though this metric alone does not determine overall graphics performance. The Rubin GPU's lower pixel rate likely reflects its design priorities, which favor compute throughput over rasterization output.

The Verdict

The data supports clear conclusions for different audiences. The AMD Radeon 680M is the only processor of the two with recorded benchmark results. Its average score of 15270 places it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 2060 and GeForce GTX 580, both within 0.1% of its average score. For systems requiring an integrated GPU with verified DirectX 12, OpenGL, and Vulkan support, the Radeon 680M is the documented choice. Its 50 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices with no discrete power connectors.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a different class of hardware entirely. With 288 GB of HBM4 memory, 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth, and 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, it targets server workloads that demand massive parallel throughput. Its 2300 W TDP and SXM Module slot indicate a data center installation profile. The lack of display outputs and N/A API support confirm it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering. Its 3 nm process and 336,000 million transistors represent the leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing, but without benchmark data, its real-world performance remains unquantified in the database.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the workload. The Radeon 680M serves mobile computing needs with verified performance and broad API compatibility. The Rubin GPU serves server compute needs with extreme specifications and no measured graphics performance. The pixel rate comparison favors the Radeon 680M at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s, but every other compute metric overwhelmingly favors the Rubin GPU. The 896 tensor cores and 260.0 TFLOPS of FP16 performance position it for AI and scientific workloads, while the Radeon 680M's 12 ray tracing cores and Vulkan 1.4 support suit it for traditional graphics tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15270, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has an average benchmark score of 0 due to having no recorded benchmark data.

Q: How does the Radeon 680M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 680M averages 15270. The GeForce GTX 580 is 0.1% ahead at 15283, the GeForce RTX 2060 is 0.1% ahead at 15290, the GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.5% behind at 15199, and the Radeon RX 7600 is 0.7% behind at 15171.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each processor?

A: The Radeon 680M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, compared to 768 on the AMD Radeon 680M.

Q: What is the pixel rate for each processor?

A: The Radeon 680M achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s.

Q: What API support does each processor offer?

A: The Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs.