Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Radeon R9 M275X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
E8860 HD 8830M HD 8850M HD 8870M R9 M265X R9 M270X R9 M275 R9 M275X
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Qualcomm Adreno 680 Qualcomm Adreno 685 Qualcomm Adreno 690 Qualcomm Adreno 829 Qualcomm Adreno 830 Qualcomm Adreno 840

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M275X and Qualcomm Adreno 685, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M275X
2014
4 GB GDDR5
3.66
+76%

R9 M275X outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 685 by an impressive 76% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 M275X R9 M275X
Qualcomm Adreno 685 Adreno 685

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking777937
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data22.99
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)no data
GPU code nameVenusno data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date28 January 2014 (12 years ago)6 December 2018 (7 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 cores640no data
Compute units10no data
Core clock speed900 MHzno data
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data7 Watt
Texture fill rate37.00no data
Floating-point processing power1.184 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no data
L1 Cache160 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno data

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 3.0 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1125 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCLNot Listedno data
Mantle+-

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.

R9 M275X 3.66
+76%
Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.08

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.

R9 M275X 1525
+75.9%
Samples: 16
Qualcomm Adreno 685 867
Samples: 13

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 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 3.66 2.08
Recency 28 January 2014 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm

R9 M275X has a 76% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M275X is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

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

R9 M275X Radeon R9 M275X
vs
GeForce 940MX GeForce 940MX
Qualcomm Adreno 685 Adreno 685
vs
HD Graphics 520 HD Graphics 520
R9 M275X Radeon R9 M275X
vs
GTX 285M SLI GeForce GTX 285M SLI
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
Tegra 2 Tegra 2
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
ATI 3000 IGP 3000 IGP
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
Xbox XGPU-S Xbox XGPU S
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
8400 SE 8400 SE
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
CMP 30HX CMP 30HX
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
Iris Plus Graphics G7 64EU Mobile Iris Plus Graphics G7 64EU Mobile
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
RTX 4070 Ti SUPER RTX 4070 Ti SUPER
R9 M275X R9 M275X
vs
Graphics 2 Xe3 Panther Lake iGPU Graphics 2 Xe3 Panther Lake iGPU

Community ratings

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

3.6 18 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M275X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 17 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 685 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M275X or Qualcomm Adreno 685, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.