Radeon 680M vs FirePro W9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W9000 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W9000
2012, $3,999
6 GB GDDR5, 350 Watt
14.69
+65.2%

W9000 outperforms 680M by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking395529
Place by popularitynot in top-10075
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.40no data
Power efficiency4.1313.69
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameTahitiRembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date14 June 2012 (13 years ago)3 January 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores2048768
Core clock speed975 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate124.8105.6
Floating-point processing power3.994 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache512 KB256 KB
L2 Cache768 KB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data8 MB

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount6 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1375 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth264 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDIPortable Device Dependent
StereoOutput3D+-
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FirePro W9000 14.69
+65.2%
Radeon 680M 8.89

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.

FirePro W9000 6144
+59%
Samples: 16
Radeon 680M 3864
Samples: 8

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 HD60−65
+62.2%
37
−62.2%
1440p27−30
+58.8%
17
−58.8%
4K16−18
+60%
10
−60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p66.65no data
1440p148.11no data
4K249.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 32
+0%
32
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how FirePro W9000 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W9000 is 62% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro W9000 is 59% faster in 1440p
  • FirePro W9000 is 60% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.69 8.89
Recency 14 June 2012 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 50 Watt

FirePro W9000 has a 65% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W9000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate FirePro W9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1195 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W9000 or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.