Radeon PRO W7800 vs 680M

Place in the ranking	333	14
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	29.53
Power efficiency	23.06	20.57
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Rembrandt+	Navi 31
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	768	4480
Core clock speed	2000 MHz	1855 MHz
Boost clock speed	2200 MHz	2499 MHz
Number of transistors	13,100 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	105.6	699.7
Floating-point processing power	3.379 TFLOPS	44.78 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	128
TMUs	48	280
Ray Tracing Cores	12	70

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	280 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	32 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	576.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.7	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Radeon 680M 15.98

PRO W7800 74.12
+364%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Radeon 680M 6166

PRO W7800 28601
+364%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	37 −359%	170−180 +359%
1440p	18 −344%	80−85 +344%
4K	11 −355%	50−55 +355%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

39
−362%

180−190

+362%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −362%	180−190 +362%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 −347%	170−180 +347%
Battlefield 5	55−60 −356%	260−270 +356%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −357%	160−170 +357%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 −348%	130−140 +348%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −363%	190−200 +363%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 −347%	210−220 +347%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −355%	500−550 +355%
Hitman 3	32 −338%	140−150 +338%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 −307%	350−400 +307%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −350%	270−280 +350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −347%	210−220 +347%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 −356%	260−270 +356%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 −312%	350−400 +312%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −362%	180−190 +362%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 −352%	140−150 +352%
Battlefield 5	55−60 −356%	260−270 +356%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −357%	160−170 +357%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 −352%	95−100 +352%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −363%	190−200 +363%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 −347%	210−220 +347%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −355%	500−550 +355%
Hitman 3	30 −333%	130−140 +333%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 −307%	350−400 +307%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −350%	270−280 +350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −347%	210−220 +347%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	47 −347%	210−220 +347%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −350%	180−190 +350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 −312%	350−400 +312%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −362%	180−190 +362%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 −344%	120−130 +344%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −357%	160−170 +357%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 −341%	75−80 +341%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −363%	190−200 +363%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −355%	500−550 +355%
Hitman 3	27 −344%	120−130 +344%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 −342%	190−200 +342%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 −350%	180−190 +350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 −358%	110−120 +358%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 −344%	80−85 +344%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50
−347%

210−220

+347%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −355%	150−160 +355%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 −344%	120−130 +344%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 −344%	80−85 +344%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −333%	65−70 +333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −347%	85−90 +347%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 −355%	50−55 +355%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −350%	90−95 +350%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −326%	400−450 +326%
Hitman 3	20−22 −350%	90−95 +350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −357%	160−170 +357%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −338%	140−150 +338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 −344%	120−130 +344%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 −341%	75−80 +341%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 −329%	450−500 +329%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30
−348%

130−140

+348%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −341%	75−80 +341%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%
Hitman 3	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 −349%	400−450 +349%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −344%	80−85 +344%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 −362%	60−65 +362%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −350%	45−50 +350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −338%	35−40 +338%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −344%	40−45 +344%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 −350%	18−20 +350%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −344%	40−45 +344%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −358%	110−120 +358%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 −329%	60−65 +329%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−333%

65−70
+333%

This is how Radeon 680M and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:

PRO W7800 is 359% faster in 1080p
PRO W7800 is 344% faster in 1440p
PRO W7800 is 355% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.98	74.12
Recency	3 January 2023	13 April 2023
Chip lithography	6 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt

Radeon 680M has 420% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 363.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 680M is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.