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 808% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 199 | 766 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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 GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| 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 compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by 808% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by 712% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 60
+900%
| 6−7
−900%
|
| 1440p | 39
+875%
| 4−5
−875%
|
| 4K | 25
+1150%
| 2−3
−1150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 500−550
+762%
|
58
−762%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+764%
|
10−12
−764%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 160−170
+789%
|
18−20
−789%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1100−1150
+773%
|
126
−773%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 140−150
+775%
|
16−18
−775%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 290−300
+806%
|
32
−806%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+764%
|
10−12
−764%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 160−170
+789%
|
18−20
−789%
|
| Metro Exodus | 750−800
+804%
|
83
−804%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 140−150
+775%
|
16−18
−775%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 210−220
+775%
|
24
−775%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+764%
|
10−12
−764%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 160−170
+789%
|
18−20
−789%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 140−150
+775%
|
16−18
−775%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 190−200
+764%
|
22
−764%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Hitman 3 | 70−75
+775%
|
8−9
−775%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 450−500
+765%
|
52
−765%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 500−550
+793%
|
56
−793%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 130−140
+767%
|
15
−767%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 200−210
+770%
|
23
−770%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 260−270
+797%
|
29
−797%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+733%
|
6
−733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−310
+782%
|
30−35
−782%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 900% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 875% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1150% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.98 | 2.75 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 7 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
