RTX A5000 Mobile vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 with RTX A5000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A5000 Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 1703% 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 | 901 | 132 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.87 | 19.24 |
| Architecture | no data | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (4 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 | no data | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 302.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 19.35 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 5−6
−2020%
| 106
+2020%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−2167%
| 68
+2167%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−2300%
| 48
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−5175%
|
210−220
+5175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2083%
|
130−140
+2083%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−5175%
|
210−220
+5175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1450%
|
93
+1450%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1560%
|
160−170
+1560%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1245%
|
140−150
+1245%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−2900%
|
120−130
+2900%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1273%
|
150−160
+1273%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−460%
|
220−230
+460%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2083%
|
130−140
+2083%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−5175%
|
210−220
+5175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−547%
|
270−280
+547%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−474%
|
132
+474%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1560%
|
160−170
+1560%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1245%
|
140−150
+1245%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−2900%
|
120−130
+2900%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−2950%
|
122
+2950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1900%
|
80
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1273%
|
150−160
+1273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1775%
|
150
+1775%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−460%
|
220−230
+460%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2083%
|
130−140
+2083%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−439%
|
124
+439%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85
+1317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1245%
|
140−150
+1245%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1273%
|
150−160
+1273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1025%
|
90
+1025%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−460%
|
220−230
+460%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1560%
|
160−170
+1560%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1820%
|
95−100
+1820%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1680%
|
260−270
+1680%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 82 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−733%
|
170−180
+733%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1406%
|
250−260
+1406%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2080%
|
100−110
+2080%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3500%
|
70−75
+3500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2425%
|
100−110
+2425%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−375%
|
76
+375%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−2018%
|
230−240
+2018%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−2040%
|
107
+2040%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−7100%
|
70−75
+7100%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1600%
|
50−55
+1600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 680 and RTX A5000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 2020% faster in 1080p
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 2167% faster in 1440p
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A5000 Mobile is 7100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A5000 Mobile performs better in 56 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.10 | 37.87 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 150 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 2042.9% lower power consumption.
RTX A5000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1703.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The RTX A5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.
Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook graphics card while RTX A5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
