Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs HD Graphics 610
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 610 and Qualcomm Adreno 685, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms HD Graphics 610 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 959 | 875 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.62 | 25.12 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | no data |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT1 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 August 2016 (8 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 | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm++ | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 7 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | no data |
| TMUs | 12 | 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 7
−28.6%
| 9−10
+28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−13.9%
|
40−45
+13.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−27.8%
|
45−50
+27.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−13.9%
|
40−45
+13.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−13.9%
|
40−45
+13.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−29.4%
|
21−24
+29.4%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−90.9%
|
21−24
+90.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 610 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 29% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 44 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.69 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 30 August 2016 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 7 Watt |
HD Graphics 610 has 40% lower power consumption.
Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has a 37.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Qualcomm Adreno 685 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 610 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.
