OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon 680M review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£570VRAM:?Memory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

AMD Radeon 680M Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 74% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

44%

3.2

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 82%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £570
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon 680M

Based on 5 · 4

Reviewers like it for video playback and editing, are split on gaming, and complain about power, cooling and memory.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon 680M

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

44%

3.2

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

5.1
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,400 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,400 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,012 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,012 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 81.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,836 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,836 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1997 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1997 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.38 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.38 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
?
Memory type
N/A
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
102.4 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,400 MHz, which is slower than that of 93.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is more advanced than on 66.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
50 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 50 W, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
45 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
N/A
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon 680M vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 58.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    5 W vs 12 W
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 58.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    5 W vs 12 W
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 77.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (102.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 72.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (105.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    105.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 6.1% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon 680M has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.99 vs 7.4).
    6.99 vs 7.41
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 72.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (105.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    105.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 56.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (70.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    70.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 85% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.38 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 4.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,400 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 83.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,836 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,836 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,400 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,400 points vs 14,779 points
  • 88.9% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,012 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,012 points vs 9,148 points
  • 83.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1997 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,997 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    January 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 77.1% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (6.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    6.76 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 56.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.21 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 77.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (102.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 66.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (50 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    50 °C vs 37 °C
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
BasicDadTech
≈ estimated
08/08/2026
Hands-on review · gaming, browsing and benchmark tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 680M is fine for browsing and basic work, but most games run poorly on it.
8.0
Hake Hardware
≈ estimated
17/10/2025
Hands-on test · local AI image generation with ComfyUI
Verdict
AMD Radeon 680M works with smaller Stable Diffusion models and images, but is limited with larger models and resolutions.
9.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
22/01/2023
Hands-on review · 15 games at 1080p on integrated graphics
Verdict
AMD Radeon 680M is impressive for integrated graphics, playing most AAA titles at 1080p on low settings.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
ultrabookreview.com
≈ estimated
31/10/2023
Lab test · Iris Xe comparison
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 680M roughly doubles the speed of the previous Vega 8 chip but falls well short of an Nvidia RTX 3050 Ti laptop GPU.
9.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
04/04/2023
Video benchmarks · Laptop gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 680M runs competitive games like Overwatch 2 and Apex Legends well on Low settings, but single-player games need Medium or lower.
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
24/02/2022
Lab test · Ryzen 6000 graphics
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 680M is a capable laptop graphics chip that ties a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in four of six games.
9.0
lesnumeriques.com
≈ estimated
02/08/2022
Hands-on test · Laptop gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 680M plays recent games at 1080p with compromises, handling Overwatch at 124 fps but needing lower detail for demanding titles.
9.0
geeknetic.es
≈ estimated
17/02/2022
Benchmark test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 680M handles 1080p games well at medium settings with FSR, but Ultra detail and demanding titles pull frame rates down.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon 680M

  • Impressive 1080p gaming performance for an integrated GPU, capable of running AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 and Forza Horizon 5 at playable frame rates with FSR enabled.
  • Significant generational leap, delivering nearly double the performance of the previous Vega 8 iGPU.
  • Highly power-efficient 6nm architecture, allowing for decent gaming in thin-and-light laptops and mini PCs without excessive heat.
  • Support for modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the latter is primarily for feature compatibility.
  • Strong performance in emulation, including smooth playback for PS2, PS3, and Switch games.
  • Excellent driver support on Linux platforms via Mesa.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon 680M

  • Heavy dependence on system RAM speed; performance is significantly bottlenecked when paired with slower DDR5-4800 memory versus LPDDR5-6400.
  • Ray tracing performance is too slow for practical use in most modern games despite hardware support.
  • Performance is highly sensitive to TDP limits; ultra-portable 15-25W implementations see a 20%+ performance drop compared to 50W+ versions.
  • Occasional stuttering and high frame time variance in demanding titles like Call of Duty: Warzone 2 or Battlefield 2042.
  • Limited VRAM allocation in some system BIOS settings can lead to crashes or unplayable performance in modern titles.
  • Already superseded by the newer Radeon 780M and 890M, making it less ideal for buyers seeking the best current value in new hardware.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon 680M is a high-performance integrated graphics solution based on the 6nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 768 shading units, 12 ray tracing cores, and a boost clock speed of up to 2400 MHz. Its primary strengths include efficient 1080p gaming performance comparable to entry-level discrete cards like the GTX 1050 Ti, support for DirectX 12 Ultimate features such as hardware ray tracing and Variable Rate Shading, and excellent power efficiency with a maximum draw of 50W. However, its capabilities are heavily reliant on system RAM speed (ideally LPDDR5-6400), and it lacks the dedicated VRAM and raw power required for smooth performance in modern AAA titles at high settings or 4K resolutions.

Compare AMD Radeon 680M with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon 680M and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found