AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

AMD Radeon 680M and NVIDIA Tesla K10 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: one is a modern integrated graphics processor built for mobile efficiency, the other a legacy dual-slot compute accelerator from a decade ago. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the 680M winning decisively, but the two cards have entirely different design goals. The 680M’s average benchmark score of 15,270 places it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla K10’s average of 14,029 puts it at the 55th percentile — a gap that reflects real performance differences but also hides the architectural chasm between them.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M wins the only directly comparable benchmark in the data set. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 680M scores 23,468 against the Tesla K10’s 14,029, a 67.3% advantage. This is not a narrow margin; it is a dominant victory that suggests the 680M is fundamentally more efficient at compute workloads that scale with modern GPU features. The 680M also holds a clear edge in the broader benchmark landscape, with an average score of 15,270 versus 14,029 for the Tesla K10 — roughly 8.8% higher.

However, the Tesla K10 is not without its own territory. Its specification sheet reveals a compute-oriented design that the 680M does not attempt to match. The K10 offers 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, both double the 680M’s counts of 768 and 48, respectively. In raw parallel throughput per clock, the K10 has more execution resources. The data shows the K10 achieves 2.289 TFLOPS FP32, which is lower than the 680M’s 3.379 TFLOPS, but the K10’s 160.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 memory bandwidth on a 256-bit bus is a feature the 680M simply lacks — the latter uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound and do not require modern API features, the K10’s dedicated frame buffer could be advantageous, though the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates this.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The 680M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using TSMC’s 6 nm process node, packing 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die. The Tesla K10 uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, with only 3,540 million transistors spread across a larger 294 mm² die. This yields transistor densities of 63.0 million per mm² for the 680M versus 12.0 million per mm² for the K10 — a 5.25x difference in density that explains much of the performance gap.

The 680M is a Navi II IGP (integrated graphics processor) from the Rembrandt Mobile generation, featuring 12 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The K10, part of the Tesla Kepler generation, has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The 680M’s FP16 capability of 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is double its FP32 throughput, a feature absent from the K10’s listed specifications — the K10 has no FP16 data at all. The 680M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the K10 uses the older PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

The power and physical profiles could not be more different. The 680M is an IGP with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and no dedicated display outputs (portable device dependent). The Tesla K10 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, requiring a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, a 550 W suggested PSU, and it has no display outputs whatsoever — it is purely a compute device. The K10 is 272 mm (10.7 inches) long and is end-of-life, while the 680M is active and was released on 2023-01-02, nearly 11 years after the K10’s 2012-04-30 release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 23,468, while the NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14,029. The delta is 67.3% in favor of the 680M. This is a massive, single-test victory that aligns with the architectural advantages: the 680M’s higher clock speeds (2,000 MHz base, 2,200 MHz boost) versus the K10’s unspecified clocks, combined with modern RDNA 2.0 efficiency, produce a clear compute win.

No other benchmark tests are shared between the two cards. The 680M has additional results in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (score 378) and Geekbench Vulkan (score 21,965), but the K10 has no corresponding entries. The 680M’s Vulkan score of 21,965 is close to its OpenCL score, indicating consistent performance across APIs, though this cannot be compared directly to the K10. The K10’s sole benchmark score of 14,029 in OpenCL places it near its nearest rivals: the GeForce GTX 680 (14,150, delta -0.9%), Radeon RX 570X (13,871, delta 1.1%), RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821, delta 1.5%), and Radeon 660M (13,812, delta 1.6%). The 680M’s nearest rivals, meanwhile, are all within a narrow band: GeForce GTX 580 (15,283, delta -0.1%), RTX 2060 (15,290, delta -0.1%), RTX 3050 OEM (15,199, delta 0.5%), and RX 7600 (15,171, delta 0.7%). The data shows the 680M sits comfortably mid-pack among modern GPUs, while the K10 sits just below it.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal every major difference. The 680M uses an RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm node with 13,100 million transistors; the K10 uses Kepler on 28 nm with 3,540 million transistors. The 680M’s die is smaller (208 mm² vs 294 mm²) but far denser. Clock speeds: the 680M has a 2,000 MHz base and 2,200 MHz boost; the K10 lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory: the 680M uses system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth; the K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 768 for the 680M versus 1,536 for the K10. TMUs: 48 versus 128. ROPs are equal at 32. The 680M has 12 RT cores; the K10 has none. FP32: 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.289 TFLOPS. FP16: 6.758 TFLOPS for the 680M, none listed for the K10. TDP: 50 W versus 225 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus no outputs. Production status: active versus end-of-life. Release date: 2023-01-02 versus 2012-04-30. Launch MSRP for the K10 was 5,099 USD; the 680M has no listed MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15,270, which is 8.8% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K10’s 14,029.

Q: How much faster is the 680M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The 680M scores 23,468 versus the K10’s 14,029, a 67.3% advantage in favor of the 680M.

Q: Does the Tesla K10 have more shading units?

A: Yes, the K10 has 1,536 shading units, exactly double the 680M’s 768, though this does not translate into higher benchmark performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The 680M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," while the K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 680M supports ray tracing, with 12 RT cores; the NVIDIA Tesla K10 has no RT cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The 680M has a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, while the K10 has a 225 W TDP and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a 550 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data is clear: for anyone choosing between these two based on benchmark performance, the AMD Radeon 680M is the superior option. It wins the only head-to-head test by 67.3%, has a higher average benchmark score, and offers modern features like ray tracing, FP16 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its 50 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices, and its active production status means it is currently available. The 680M’s nearest rivals — the RTX 2060 and GTX 580 — are within 0.1% of its average score, indicating it performs at a level comparable to those discrete GPUs.

The NVIDIA Tesla K10, by contrast, is an end-of-life product with a 225 W TDP, dedicated memory, and double the shading units of the 680M. Its lower FP32 throughput (2.289 TFLOPS) and lack of modern API support (DirectX 12 11_0, Vulkan 1.2.175) make it a poor choice for current workloads. Its only advantage is the dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, which could matter for specific memory-bound compute tasks, but no benchmark in the data set demonstrates this benefit. The K10’s launch MSRP was 5,099 USD, making it a high-cost legacy option. For any new deployment, the 680M is the rational pick based on performance, efficiency, and feature set. The K10 remains a historical artifact, relevant only to those maintaining legacy Kepler-based compute infrastructure.