AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M records an average benchmark score of 7023, while the AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6001. This places the GTX 680M at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, with the RX 6400 at the 35th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 2.038 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), while the GTX 680M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but the GTX 680M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6400’s faster memory clocks (16 Gbps effective vs. 3.6 Gbps) give it higher total bandwidth.

Q: How do the thermal design power (TDP) figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W, while the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is rated at 53 W. The RX 6400 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the GTX 680M does not record a suggested PSU value.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has no ray tracing cores, as it predates that hardware feature.

Q: What are the production statuses and release timestamps?

A: The GTX 680M was released on 2012-06-03 and is end-of-life. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18 and is also end-of-life. The GTX 680M’s predecessor is GeForce 500M, its successor GeForce 700M; the RX 6400’s predecessor is Navi, its successor Navi III.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32011, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9230. The RX 6400 wins by a margin of 71.2% relative to the GTX 680M’s score. That is a substantial lead, roughly 3.5 times the raw score. The delta is recorded as -71.2% from the perspective of the loser, meaning the GTX 680M trails by that percentage.

This single test dominates the head-to-head comparison. The GTX 680M has no winning benchmark in the database, and the RX 6400 has one. The overall win tally is 0 for the GTX 680M and 1 for the RX 6400. For context, the GTX 680M’s average score of 7023 sits close to its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA T600 at 7035 (a 0.2% gap), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 at 6975 (0.7% gap), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 (1.1% gap). The RX 6400’s average of 6001 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000, which is a 0% delta, and it sits 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996.

The OpenCL result is the only direct comparison, but it is decisive. The RX 6400’s compute advantage is not marginal; it is a clear generational leap in raw throughput. The GTX 680M, despite being a high-end mobile part of its era, cannot match the modern GPU’s compute density. The RX 6400’s higher shader count efficiency and faster clock speeds drive this outcome.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, so it holds the advantage in general compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32011 indicates strong performance in OpenCL-based tasks, which include physics simulations, image processing, and some machine learning inference. The RX 6400 also has a PassMark G3D score of 7673, which suggests solid DirectX gaming performance across several API levels: DirectX 9 at 93, DirectX 10 at 54, DirectX 11 at 70, and DirectX 12 at 30. It also records a PassMark GPU Compute score of 2812 and a PassMark G2D score of 722.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M does not have any winning benchmark in the head-to-head set, but its average score of 7023 is higher than the RX 6400’s average of 6001. That means across a broader set of unspecified benchmarks, the GTX 680M tends to score better on average, even though it loses the one direct comparison. This suggests the GTX 680M may excel in older or differently weighted workloads, possibly those that favor its 256-bit memory bus or its higher TMU count (112 vs. 48). The GTX 680M’s texture rate is 84.90 GTexel/s, while the RX 6400’s is 111.4 GTexel/s, so the RX 6400 wins on texture throughput, but the GTX 680M’s pixel rate is lower at 21.22 GPixel/s vs. 74.27 GPixel/s.

In practical terms, the RX 6400 is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks and modern API support. The GTX 680M, with its higher average score, might hold up better in legacy DirectX 11-era games or applications that do not leverage newer instruction sets. The RX 6400’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 (vs. Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GTX 680M) give it a forward-looking edge, while the GTX 680M’s DirectX 12 (11_0) support is older.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm process from the same foundry, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.0M per mm² for the GTX 680M versus 50.5M per mm² for the RX 6400, a 4.2x difference in packing efficiency.

Clock speeds: the GTX 680M runs at a base of 719 MHz and a boost of 758 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The RX 6400 runs at a base of 1923 MHz, a game clock of 2039 MHz, and a boost of 2321 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RX 6400’s boost clock is over three times higher.

Memory: both have 4 GB, but the GTX 680M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (115.2 GB/s), while the RX 6400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus (128.0 GB/s). The RX 6400 has higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Compute units: the GTX 680M has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 680M has more shading units and TMUs, but the RX 6400’s higher clocks compensate. The RX 6400 also adds 12 ray tracing cores, which the GTX 680M lacks.

Power and physical: the GTX 680M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the RX 6400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors. The RX 6400 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W; the GTX 680M does not. The GTX 680M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs: the GTX 680M is portable-device dependent, while the RX 6400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 680M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, which dates to 2012. Kepler introduced a simplified scheduling model and higher clock efficiency for its era, but it lacks hardware ray tracing and tensor cores. Its DirectX support is 12 (11_0), meaning it only implements the features of DirectX 11 and does not support newer DirectX 12 feature levels. Its Vulkan support is 1.2.175.

The RX 6400 is built on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, which is a modern gaming design. It includes 12 ray tracing cores, supporting hardware-accelerated ray tracing in games. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other advanced features. Its Vulkan support is 1.4, a newer revision than the GTX 680M’s. The RX 6400 also has FP16 support at a 2:1 rate, which can accelerate certain compute workloads, while the GTX 680M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm for Kepler versus 6 nm for RDNA 2.0. This allows the RX 6400 to pack 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, versus 3,540 million into 294 mm² for the GTX 680M. The RX 6400’s transistor density is 50.5M per mm², compared to 12.0M per mm². That density enables higher clock speeds and more features per watt, which is why the RX 6400 achieves a higher FP32 throughput (3.565 TFLOPS) than the GTX 680M (2.038 TFLOPS) while consuming less power (53 W vs. 100 W).

The RX 6400’s architecture also includes a game clock of 2039 MHz, a feature that sits between base and boost clocks, indicating sustained performance under load. The GTX 680M has no game clock field. The RX 6400’s memory controller is narrower (64-bit vs. 256-bit), but the GDDR6 standard provides higher per-pin bandwidth, resulting in 128.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. This means the RX 6400 can feed its shaders more effectively in memory-heavy scenarios.

In summary, the RX 6400 is a modern, efficient design with ray tracing and advanced API support, while the GTX 680M is a legacy part with more shading units but older technology. The benchmark data shows the RX 6400 dominating in compute, but the GTX 680M’s higher average score suggests it may still be competitive in specific legacy workloads.