RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs Qualcomm Adreno 680

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 with RTX 4000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm Adreno 680
2018
7 Watt
2.22

RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 2783% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking86029
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.8833.97
Architectureno dataAda Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameno dataAD104
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 December 2018 (6 years ago)9 August 2023 (1 year 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 coresno data6144
Core clock speedno data1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2175 MHz
Number of transistorsno data35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rateno data417.6
Floating-point processing powerno data26.73 TFLOPS
ROPsno data80
TMUsno data192
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data245 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin

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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data20 GB
Memory bus widthno data160 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data360.0 GB/s
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 Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.9

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.22
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 64.00
+2783%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 680 854
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 24607
+2781%

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

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2700%
280−290
+2700%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Elden Ring 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2700%
280−290
+2700%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−2678%
250−260
+2678%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2700%
280−290
+2700%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Dota 2 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Elden Ring 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%
Fortnite 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−2757%
600−650
+2757%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−2678%
250−260
+2678%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−2678%
250−260
+2678%
World of Tanks 40−45
−2757%
1200−1250
+2757%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2700%
280−290
+2700%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Dota 2 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−2757%
600−650
+2757%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
World of Tanks 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−2678%
250−260
+2678%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−2733%
170−180
+2733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−2733%
85−90
+2733%
Valorant 8−9
−2775%
230−240
+2775%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−2713%
450−500
+2713%
Elden Ring 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−2733%
170−180
+2733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Dota 2 16−18
−2713%
450−500
+2713%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Fortnite 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Valorant 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.22 64.00
Recency 6 December 2018 9 August 2023
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 130 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has 1757.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 4000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 2782.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook card while RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680
NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation
RTX 4000 Ada Generation

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 38 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 46 votes

Rate RTX 4000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.