AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two GPUs along very clear lines. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins every single head-to-head test in the database, and the margins are not subtle. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 1873 against the Radeon 680M's 378, a delta of 395.5%. That is not a close contest; it is a category difference. The Quadro RTX 4000 is a dedicated workstation card with a 160 W TDP, while the Radeon 680M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 50 W TDP. The data reflects that fundamental gap.

However, the Radeon 680M has its own territory. It is an integrated solution, meaning it occupies no extra slot width and draws no additional power connectors. The database lists its slot width as "IGP" and its power connectors as "None." For systems where physical space and power draw are the constraints, the Radeon 680M is the only viable option in this comparison. The Quadro RTX 4000 requires a single-slot bracket, a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Radeon 680M's TDP of 50 W is one-third of the Quadro's 160 W, which matters for compact laptops or small-form-factor builds.

The use-case split is therefore not about which GPU is faster, because the Quadro wins all three recorded benchmarks outright. Instead, the split is about deployment. The Quadro RTX 4000 is for a workstation or desktop chassis that can accommodate a full add-in card with dedicated GDDR6 memory. The Radeon 680M is for a portable or integrated system where the CPU and GPU share system memory and the entire graphics solution is fused onto the processor package. The Radeon 680M's memory is listed as "System Shared" with "System Dependent" bandwidth, which ties its performance directly to the host system's RAM configuration. The Quadro RTX 4000, by contrast, has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip built on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 13,600 million transistors onto a 545 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The architecture is Turing, from the Quadro Turing generation. It features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The FP32 compute is rated at 7.119 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 14.24 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip on TSMC's 6 nm process. It contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². That is more than double the density of the TU104, which is a direct result of the smaller process node. The architecture is RDNA 2.0, from the Navi II IGP generation. It has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. It has no tensor cores at all. The FP32 compute is 3.379 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 6.758 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

The clock speeds also differ substantially. The Quadro RTX 4000 runs at a base of 1005 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz. The Radeon 680M runs at a base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The Radeon's higher clocks partially compensate for its lower shader count, but not enough to close the compute gap. The Quadro's FP32 output is more than double the Radeon's, at 7.119 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS.

The API support is identical: both cards list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory interfaces are completely different. The Quadro has a dedicated 256-bit bus with GDDR6, while the Radeon relies on shared system memory with no dedicated bus width listed. The Radeon's memory clock is also "System Shared," whereas the Quadro's memory runs at 1625 MHz with 13 Gbps effective speed.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the overwhelmingly faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. Its average benchmark score is 17,789, placing it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 680M averages 15,270, at the 57th percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (delta 0.9%), and the AMD Radeon 780M (delta 1.1%). The Radeon 680M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (delta -0.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (delta 0.5%).

Who should pick which? If the requirement is maximum graphics performance in a system that can house a dedicated card, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear choice. It delivers 395.5% higher 3DMark Steel Nomad scores, 217.6% higher OpenCL scores, and 259% higher Vulkan scores. It is end-of-life, but it remains a capable workstation part with a launch MSRP of 899 USD.

If the requirement is an integrated solution for a portable device, the Radeon 680M is the only option. It is active in production, has no power connector, no slot width, and a 50 W TDP. Its performance is lower, but its form factor is entirely different. The Radeon 680M's percentile rank of 57 is only four points below the Quadro's 61, which suggests that despite the massive head-to-head deltas, the Radeon still outperforms a large portion of the GPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has an average benchmark score of 17,789, while the AMD Radeon 680M has an average of 15,270.

Q: What is the largest margin of victory in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest margin is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 1873 versus the Radeon 680M's 378, a delta of 395.5%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm², while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has a density of 25.0 million per mm². The Radeon is built on a 6 nm process versus the Quadro's 12 nm process.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W, while the AMD Radeon 680M has a TDP of 50 W.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has 288 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon 680M lists no tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three recorded head-to-head tests all go to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000, and the deltas are stark. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Quadro scores 1873 versus the Radeon's 378. That is a 395.5% advantage, the largest of the three. This test likely stresses ray tracing and DX12 features, where the Quadro's 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores provide a major structural advantage over the Radeon's 12 RT cores and no tensor cores.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 74,540 against the Radeon's 23,468. The delta is 217.6%. OpenCL compute performance correlates with raw FP32 throughput, and the Quadro's 7.119 TFLOPS versus the Radeon's 3.379 TFLOPS explains the gap. Even though the Radeon runs at a higher boost clock (2200 MHz versus 1545 MHz), it has only 768 shading units versus the Quadro's 2304.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 78,844 against the Radeon's 21,965, a delta of 259%. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that can expose architectural differences. The Quadro's dedicated 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Radeon's system-shared memory likely contributes to this result. The Radeon's memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning it varies with the host platform, whereas the Quadro's bandwidth is fixed.

The wins tally is 3 for the Quadro and 0 for the Radeon. The Radeon's closest recorded benchmark is its Geekbench OpenCL result, where it trails by 217.6%, still a massive margin. The data gives no indication of a scenario where the Radeon 680M outperforms the Quadro RTX 4000 in raw graphics benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification field. The process node differs: the Quadro uses 12 nm, the Radeon uses 6 nm. The die size is 545 mm² for the Quadro versus 208 mm² for the Radeon. Transistor counts are similar (13,600 million versus 13,100 million), but density is not (25.0M/mm² versus 63.0M/mm²).

The clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The Quadro has a base clock of 1005 MHz and boost of 1545 MHz. The Radeon has a base of 2000 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz. Memory configurations are completely different: the Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 416.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The Radeon has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores, with no tensor cores. The pixel rate is 98.88 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the Radeon. The texture rate is 222.5 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor also differ. The Quadro has a 160 W TDP, is single-slot, requires a 1x 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The Radeon has a 50 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, and needs no power connector. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Radeon. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the Radeon's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

The production status differs: the Quadro is end-of-life, the Radeon is active. The release dates are 2018-11-12 for the Quadro and 2023-01-02 for the Radeon. The Quadro lists a launch MSRP of 899 USD, while the Radeon has no listed MSRP. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and successor is Workstation Ampere. The Radeon's predecessor is Vega II IGP and successor is Navi III IGP.