Radeon Pro W6400 vs 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 680M with Radeon Pro W6400, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 680M
2023
50 Watt
8.67

Pro W6400 outperforms 680M by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking499266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.9428.97
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRembrandt+Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 January 2023 (2 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)

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 cores768768
Core clock speed2000 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2331 MHz
Number of transistors13,100 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate105.6111.9
Floating-point processing power3.379 TFLOPS3.58 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4848
Ray Tracing Cores1212

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data112.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3

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 8.67
Pro W6400 21.04
+143%

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 3334
Pro W6400 8089
+143%

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 HD37
−130%
85−90
+130%
1440p19
−137%
45−50
+137%
4K10
−140%
24−27
+140%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
−132%
65−70
+132%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
−131%
90−95
+131%
Elden Ring 34
−135%
80−85
+135%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−139%
110−120
+139%
Counter-Strike 2 23
−139%
55−60
+139%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
−114%
30−33
+114%
Forza Horizon 4 56
−132%
130−140
+132%
Metro Exodus 39
−131%
90−95
+131%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−129%
80−85
+129%
Valorant 161
−117%
350−400
+117%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−139%
110−120
+139%
Counter-Strike 2 21
−138%
50−55
+138%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−118%
24−27
+118%
Dota 2 48
−129%
110−120
+129%
Elden Ring 66
−142%
160−170
+142%
Far Cry 5 36
−136%
85−90
+136%
Fortnite 80−85
−138%
190−200
+138%
Forza Horizon 4 47
−134%
110−120
+134%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
−136%
85−90
+136%
Metro Exodus 27
−141%
65−70
+141%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−133%
240−250
+133%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−129%
80−85
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−133%
100−105
+133%
Valorant 30
−133%
70−75
+133%
World of Tanks 180−190
−142%
450−500
+142%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−139%
110−120
+139%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
−133%
21−24
+133%
Dota 2 61
−130%
140−150
+130%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−126%
120−130
+126%
Forza Horizon 4 40
−138%
95−100
+138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−133%
240−250
+133%
Valorant 146
−140%
350−400
+140%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 17
−135%
40−45
+135%
Elden Ring 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
−135%
40−45
+135%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
−135%
280−290
+135%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%
World of Tanks 100−105
−140%
240−250
+140%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−132%
65−70
+132%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
−140%
12−14
+140%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−135%
80−85
+135%
Forza Horizon 4 27
−141%
65−70
+141%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−142%
75−80
+142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
−135%
40−45
+135%
Valorant 35−40
−129%
80−85
+129%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Dota 2 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Elden Ring 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−138%
100−105
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−140%
60−65
+140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−131%
30−33
+131%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
−100%
4−5
+100%
Dota 2 18
−122%
40−45
+122%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Fortnite 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−114%
30−33
+114%
Valorant 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%

This is how Radeon 680M and Pro W6400 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6400 is 130% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6400 is 137% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W6400 is 140% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.67 21.04
Recency 3 January 2023 19 January 2022

Radeon 680M has an age advantage of 11 months.

Pro W6400, on the other hand, has a 142.7% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon Pro W6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 680M is a notebook card while Radeon Pro W6400 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
AMD Radeon Pro W6400
Radeon Pro W6400

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 985 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 28 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.