Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs Radeon R9 M280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M280X and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms R9 M280X by a moderate 12% 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 | 956 | 925 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 24.09 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | no data |
| GPU code name | Saturn | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 February 2015 (11 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 cores | 896 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 7 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no 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 type | Not Listed | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
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.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | no 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 HD | 27
−11.1%
| 30−35
+11.1%
|
| 4K | 18
+0%
| 18−21
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 67
+52.3%
|
40−45
−52.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R9 M280X and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 11% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 M280X is 140% faster.
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M280X performs better in 5 tests (10%)
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 performs better in 31 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.95 | 2.18 |
| Recency | 5 February 2015 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 12% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Qualcomm Adreno 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M280X 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.
