Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce GT 730M

Place in the ranking	874	860
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.41	21.88
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	no data
GPU code name	GK107	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 January 2013 (12 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	384	no data
Core clock speed	725 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,270 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.20	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.5568 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	32	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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0	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	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Standard memory configuration	DDR3/GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	No outputs	no data
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
CUDA	+	-

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.

GT 730M 2.11

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.22
+5.2%

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.

GT 730M 813

Qualcomm Adreno 680 854
+5%

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.

GT 730M 1722

Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936
+12.4%

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

22
+4.8%

21−24

−4.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Fortnite	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
World of Tanks	52 +23.8%	40−45 −23.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	1−2
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GT 730M and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

GT 730M is 5% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 730M is 24% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 730M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 12 tests (24%)
there's a draw in 38 tests (75%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.11	2.22
Recency	20 January 2013	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 5.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 371.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 730M and Qualcomm Adreno 680.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.