AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 and AMD Radeon Pro 5600M represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by eight years of architectural evolution. The GTX 690, a dual-GPU Kepler flagship from 2012, was built for raw desktop power, while the Radeon Pro 5600M, a mobile RDNA 1.0 part from 2020, was designed for professional laptops. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap in modern compute workloads, but the comparison is far from one-dimensional. The GTX 690 holds its own in a narrow set of legacy scenarios, while the Radeon Pro 5600M dominates in nearly every measurable way, particularly in OpenCL and Vulkan performance, where it scores roughly 2.7 times higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 has an average benchmark score of 17037, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16351. The GTX 690 is about 4.2% higher in aggregate, placing it at the 60th percentile versus the 59th percentile for the Radeon Pro 5600M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47783 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 690 scores 17399. That is a 63.6% delta in favor of the AMD card, making it the clear winner in this test.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon Pro 5600M achieves 46425, versus 16675 for the GTX 690. The delta is 64.1% in favor of the AMD card, consistent with its OpenCL lead.

Q: Does the GTX 690 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), the Radeon Pro 5600M wins both. The GTX 690 has zero wins, while the AMD card has two.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 690 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 394.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 690 lists 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro 5600M does not report transistor count or die size in the data.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive recommendation for the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M for any user prioritizing modern compute performance. In OpenCL, the AMD card scores 47783, which is 63.6% higher than the GTX 690’s 17399. In Vulkan, the margin is nearly identical at 64.1%, with scores of 46425 versus 16675. These are not marginal gains; they represent a fundamental generational leap in throughput. The Radeon Pro 5600M also offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth, compared to 2 GB of GDDR5 at 192.3 GB/s, making it vastly superior for memory-heavy workloads like large datasets or high-resolution textures.

However, the GTX 690 still has a niche. Its average benchmark score of 17037 edges out the Radeon Pro 5600M’s 16351, and it sits at the 60th percentile versus 59th. This aggregate advantage likely stems from the GTX 690 being a dual-GPU design, which can excel in certain legacy or multi-GPU-aware applications. For users running older DirectX 9/10/11 titles or software that leverages dual-GPU configurations, the GTX 690 may still be relevant. But for any modern workload—compute, rendering, or Vulkan-based games—the Radeon Pro 5600M is the only sensible choice.

The verdict is clear: pick the Radeon Pro 5600M for current-generation performance, memory capacity, and efficiency (50 W TDP versus 300 W). Pick the GTX 690 only if you have a specific legacy use case that benefits from its dual-GPU architecture and you can tolerate its higher power draw and older feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is stark. Only two tests are shared between the two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47783, while the GTX 690 manages 17399. The delta is 63.6%, meaning the AMD card is roughly 2.7 times faster. This is not a close contest; it reflects the Radeon Pro 5600M’s higher FP32 throughput of 5.857 TFLOPS versus the GTX 690’s 3.130 TFLOPS. The AMD card also has 2560 shading units and 160 TMUs, compared to 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs on the GTX 690.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the pattern repeats. The Radeon Pro 5600M scores 46425, and the GTX 690 scores 16675. The delta is 64.1%, again favoring the AMD card by a factor of about 2.8. The GTX 690’s Vulkan support is listed as API 1.2.175, while the Radeon Pro 5600M supports Vulkan 1.3, which may contribute to the gap in driver-level efficiency.

The GTX 690 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head set. Its only statistical advantage appears in the aggregate average score, but that is not a head-to-head test. The data strongly suggests that for any modern API workload, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior performer by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 690 uses a 28 nm process, while the Radeon Pro 5600M uses a 7 nm process, both fabricated by TSMC. The GTX 690 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro 5600M’s transistor count and die size are not listed.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The GTX 690 has a base clock of 915 MHz and a boost clock of 1019 MHz, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro 5600M has a lower base clock of 822 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1144 MHz, with memory at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective).

Memory is a major differentiator. The GTX 690 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 394.2 GB/s bandwidth. That is more than double the bandwidth and four times the capacity.

Compute units also differ. The GTX 690 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate is 32.61 GPixel/s for the GTX 690 versus 73.22 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 5600M. Texture rate is 130.4 GTexel/s versus 183.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.130 TFLOPS versus 5.857 TFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 5600M also lists FP16 at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1), while the GTX 690 has no FP16 data.

Power and physical specs are starkly different. The GTX 690 has a TDP of 300 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, is dual-slot, and measures 279 mm in length. The Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), and has no listed dimensions. The GTX 690 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 690, versus portable device dependent for the Radeon Pro 5600M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The GTX 690 is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. The Radeon Pro 5600M is built on AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture, using the Navi 12 chip, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation. These are not iterative improvements; they are entirely different design philosophies separated by eight years.

The GTX 690 is a dual-GPU card, meaning it contains two GK104 dies working in tandem. This is evident in its 3,540 million transistor count and 294 mm² die size, which likely represents a single die. The Radeon Pro 5600M is a single-die solution with no separate transistor count, but its 7 nm process allows for higher density and efficiency. The GTX 690’s 28 nm process is three generations older, contributing to its 300 W TDP versus the Radeon Pro 5600M’s 50 W TDP.

Memory architecture also differs. The GTX 690 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, which was standard for high-end cards in 2012. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, a technology designed for high bandwidth with lower power. This explains the bandwidth advantage: 394.2 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s.

API support shows the generational gap. The GTX 690 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level on the AMD card is higher, enabling more advanced rendering features. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies or omit them.

The Radeon Pro 5600M also lists FP16 performance of 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GTX 690 does not provide. This makes the AMD card better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference or HDR rendering tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5600M wins in every head-to-head benchmark, so its dominance is clear. It excels in modern compute workloads, as evidenced by its OpenCL score of 47783 and Vulkan score of 46425. The 8 GB HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth makes it ideal for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-tasking professional applications. Its FP32 throughput of 5.857 TFLOPS is nearly double the GTX 690’s 3.130 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability adds another dimension. The 50 W TDP means it can run in thin, portable devices without discrete power connectors, making it suitable for mobile workstations. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support ensure compatibility with current software.

The GTX 690’s wins are less obvious but still present in the data. Its average benchmark score of 17037 is higher than the Radeon Pro 5600M’s 16351, and it achieves the 60th percentile versus 59th. This suggests that in aggregate, across all benchmarks (not just the two shared tests), the GTX 690 retains a slight edge. Its dual-GPU design may benefit legacy applications that were optimized for multi-GPU scaling. The card’s 3.130 TFLOPS FP32 and 130.4 GTexel/s texture rate are still respectable for older DirectX 9/10/11 titles. Its 300 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 interface are dated, but for a desktop system with a 700 W PSU, it can still drive multiple displays (3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort). The GTX 690’s launch MSRP was 999 USD, though this should not be interpreted as current value.

In summary, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the winner for virtually all modern workloads, with massive leads in OpenCL and Vulkan. The GTX 690 remains a curiosity for legacy software and dual-GPU enthusiasts, but its 0-2 head-to-head record and lower percentile performance make it a hard sell outside that niche.