Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 and Qualcomm Adreno 685, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a moderate 12% 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 | 892 | 865 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.93 | 24.66 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 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.
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 7 Watt |
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.
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 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 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 44 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (19%)
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
