A10G vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 with A10G, including specs and performance data.
A10G outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 1397% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 925 | 188 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.09 | 16.83 |
| Architecture | no data | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (7 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | no data | 9216 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 492.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 31.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 9 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 8-pin EPS |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1563 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 600.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1300%
|
140−150
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1275%
|
550−600
+1275%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−1377%
|
650−700
+1377%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1204%
|
300−310
+1204%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1300%
|
140−150
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1275%
|
550−600
+1275%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1204%
|
300−310
+1204%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1275%
|
550−600
+1275%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1300%
|
140−150
+1300%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1338%
|
230−240
+1338%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1371%
|
250−260
+1371%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1367%
|
220−230
+1367%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.18 | 32.64 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 150 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 2043% lower power consumption.
A10G, on the other hand, has a 1397% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.
Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook graphics card while A10G is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
