Radeon 740M vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 with Radeon 740M, including specs and performance data.
740M outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 252% 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 | 565 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.84 | 12.50 |
| Architecture | no data | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | Phoenix2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (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 cores | no data | 256 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 20,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 44.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.867 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 4 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | + |
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 | Motherboard 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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
−320%
| 21
+320%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1725%
|
73
+1725%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−200%
|
30−35
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−97.5%
|
75−80
+97.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−550%
|
26
+550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−179%
|
120−130
+179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−248%
|
80−85
+248%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−200%
|
30−35
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−575%
|
27
+575%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−97.5%
|
75−80
+97.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−248%
|
80−85
+248%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−200%
|
30−35
+200%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−97.5%
|
75−80
+97.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−287%
|
55−60
+287%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−95.2%
|
40−45
+95.2%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−394%
|
80−85
+394%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−255%
|
35−40
+255%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 680 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 740M is 320% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 740M is 1725% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 740M performs better in 53 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.10 | 7.39 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 45 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has 542.9% lower power consumption.
Radeon 740M, on the other hand, has a 251.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 740M 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 Radeon 740M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
