Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce 9800M GT SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GT SLI and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms 9800M SLI by a moderate 14% 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 | 946 | 913 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.11 | 23.38 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | no data |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GT2 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (17 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (6 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 7 Watt |
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 |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+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 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−10.3%
|
40−45
+10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| 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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| 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
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| 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%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 performs better in 38 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.87 | 2.13 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 7 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1757.1% lower power consumption.
The Qualcomm Adreno 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GT SLI 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.
