Arc Pro A30M vs Qualcomm Adreno 685

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 685 with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm Adreno 685
2018
7 Watt
2.54

Arc Pro A30M outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 685 by a whopping 498% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking824348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency25.2921.19
Architectureno dataGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameno dataDG2-128
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date6 December 2018 (5 years ago)8 August 2022 (2 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 coresno data1024
Core clock speedno data1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistorsno data7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data128.0
Floating-point processing powerno data4.096 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
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. 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 685 2.54
Arc Pro A30M 15.20
+498%

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 685 979
Arc Pro A30M 5862
+499%

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

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Hitman 3 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−471%
120−130
+471%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−479%
220−230
+479%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Hitman 3 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−471%
120−130
+471%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−471%
80−85
+471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−479%
220−230
+479%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Hitman 3 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−471%
120−130
+471%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−471%
80−85
+471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−479%
220−230
+479%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Hitman 3 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−494%
95−100
+494%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−483%
35−40
+483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.54 15.20
Recency 6 December 2018 8 August 2022
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 50 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has 614.3% lower power consumption.

Arc Pro A30M, on the other hand, has a 498.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook graphics card while Arc Pro A30M is a mobile 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 685
Adreno 685
Intel Arc Pro A30M
Arc Pro A30M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 15 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 685 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate Arc Pro A30M 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.