Radeon 680M vs Pro WX 5100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 5100 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 5100
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.46
+66.8%

Pro WX 5100 outperforms 680M by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking364499
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.44no data
Power efficiency13.2711.94
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameEllesmereRembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date18 November 2016 (8 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 no data

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 cores1792768
Core clock speed713 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1086 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate121.6105.6
Floating-point processing power3.892 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11248
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Width1-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

Pro WX 5100 14.46
+66.8%
Radeon 680M 8.67

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.

Pro WX 5100 5558
+66.7%
Radeon 680M 3334

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%
1440p30−35
+66.7%
18
−66.7%
4K16−18
+60%
10
−60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.32no data
1440p16.63no data
4K31.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Elden Ring 34
+0%
34
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 39
+0%
39
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 161
+0%
161
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Elden Ring 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+0%
47
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 30
+0%
30
+0%
World of Tanks 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+0%
40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
Elden Ring 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
World of Tanks 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Elden Ring 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
+0%
2
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how Pro WX 5100 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 5100 is 62% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 5100 is 67% faster in 1440p
  • Pro WX 5100 is 60% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.46 8.67
Recency 18 November 2016 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

Pro WX 5100 has a 66.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 5100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 5100 is a workstation card while Radeon 680M is a notebook 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 Pro WX 5100
Radeon Pro WX 5100
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

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.


3.3 97 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 5100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 985 votes

Rate Radeon 680M 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.