Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs HD Graphics 3000

Place in performance ranking	1147	773
Place by popularity	90	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.66
Architecture	Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)	no data
GPU code name	Sandy Bridge	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 February 2011 (13 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Current price	$476	$1429

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 3000 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	12	no data
Core clock speed	350 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	995 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.80	no data
Floating-point performance	20.4 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 3000 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 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.

Interface

PCIe 1.0 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	System Shared	no data
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	no data
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	System Shared	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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12
Shader Model	4.1	no data
OpenGL	3.1	no data
OpenCL	N/A	no data
Vulkan	N/A	no data

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.

HD Graphics 3000 0.66

Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.69
+308%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD Graphics 3000 254

Qualcomm Adreno 685 892
+251%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 251% in Passmark.

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

−275%

30−35
+275%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

1−2

−400%

5−6
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Hitman 3	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Hitman 3	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	4−5
Hitman 3	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%