Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 995% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 233 | 867 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.08 | 21.97 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | no data |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 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 | 2048 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 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 |
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 | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 |
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.
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 | 64
+1180%
| 5−6
−1180%
|
| 1440p | 47
+1075%
| 4−5
−1075%
|
| 4K | 30
+1400%
| 2−3
−1400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 71
+1083%
|
6−7
−1083%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+1220%
|
5−6
−1220%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 54
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+1450%
|
6−7
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+1178%
|
9−10
−1178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+736%
|
10−12
−736%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+709%
|
10−12
−709%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+303%
|
40−45
−303%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 32
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+500%
|
40−45
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+413%
|
21−24
−413%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+1178%
|
9−10
−1178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+736%
|
10−12
−736%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+2050%
|
4−5
−2050%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+709%
|
10−12
−709%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+1057%
|
7−8
−1057%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+303%
|
40−45
−303%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+1283%
|
6−7
−1283%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+387%
|
21−24
−387%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+736%
|
10−12
−736%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+709%
|
10−12
−709%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+303%
|
40−45
−303%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+1178%
|
9−10
−1178%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+987%
|
14−16
−987%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1067%
|
14−16
−1067%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+1076%
|
16−18
−1076%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1080%
|
5−6
−1080%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1118%
|
10−12
−1118%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62
+1140%
|
5−6
−1140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1180% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1075% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 4000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed Qualcomm Adreno 680 in all 56 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.99 | 2.19 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 7 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 995.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Qualcomm Adreno 680, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 757.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 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.
