Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs GeForce GTX 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with Qualcomm Adreno 685, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.16
+24.4%

GTX 260 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 685 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking753828
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency1.2726.63
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)no data
GPU code nameGT200no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores192no data
CUDA cores192no data
Core clock speed576 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt7 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.86no data
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPSno data
ROPs28no data
TMUs64no 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount896 MBno data
Memory bus width448 Bitno data
Memory clock speed999 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTVno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
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.

GTX 260 3.16
+24.4%
Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.54

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.

GTX 260 1217
+24.3%
Qualcomm Adreno 685 979

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.16 2.54
Recency 16 June 2008 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 7 Watt

GTX 260 has a 24.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 2500% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260
Qualcomm Adreno 685
Adreno 685

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.8 592 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 15 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.