Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Quadro K1100M

Place in the ranking	798	833
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.12	no data
Power efficiency	4.34	25.02
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	no data
GPU code name	GK107	no data
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	6 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109.94	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 cores	384	no data
Core clock speed	706 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,270 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.59	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.5422 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	32	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	44.8 GB/s	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
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	+	-
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.

K1100M 2.83
+11.4%

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.

K1100M 1087
+11.5%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 975

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.

K1100M 1827

Qualcomm Adreno 685 1927
+5.5%

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

17
+21.4%

14−16

−21.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.47

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Dota 2	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Fortnite	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +8.3%	24−27 −8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
World of Tanks	50−55 +8.5%	45−50 −8.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Dota 2	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +8.3%	24−27 −8.3%
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
World of Tanks	18−20 +11.8%	16−18 −11.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Fortnite	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

This is how K1100M and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

K1100M is 21% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K1100M is 200% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 11% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K1100M is ahead in 34 tests (58%)
Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 24 tests (41%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	2.54
Recency	23 July 2013	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	7 Watt

K1100M has a 11.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 542.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation card while Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a mobile workstation one.

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