Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	497	877
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.67	21.70
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	no data
GPU code name	GM107	no data
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 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	640	no data
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.72	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	40	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	80 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 Stereo	+	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	1.1.126	-
CUDA	5.0	-

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.

Quadro M1200 8.38
+305%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.07

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.

Quadro M1200 3232
+306%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 797

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.

Quadro M1200 5310
+174%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936

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	29 +314%	7−8 −314%
4K	11 +450%	2−3 −450%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+160%

5−6

−160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +129%	21−24 −129%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +133%	12−14 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +52.6%	35−40 −52.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +129%	21−24 −129%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +133%	12−14 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +71.4%	14−16 −71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +52.6%	35−40 −52.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +129%	21−24 −129%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +133%	12−14 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +52.6%	35−40 −52.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+229%

7−8

−229%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +325%	8−9 −325%
Hitman 3	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +231%	16−18 −231%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+133%

6−7

−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +357%	7−8 −357%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+100%

4−5

−100%

This is how Quadro M1200 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

Quadro M1200 is 314% faster in 1080p
Quadro M1200 is 450% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro M1200 is 1100% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 8% faster.

All in all, in popular games: