Radeon 780M vs Qualcomm Adreno 685
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 685 and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
780M outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 685 by a whopping 621% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 827 | 301 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 49 |
| Power efficiency | 24.85 | 83.65 |
| Architecture | no data | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | no data | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 6 December 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 cores | no data | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 |
| 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
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 Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API 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. 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.
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 | 4−5
−775%
| 35
+775%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−800%
| 18
+800%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1100%
| 12
+1100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 30−33 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−520%
|
31
+520%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−785%
|
110−120
+785%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−329%
|
90−95
+329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−717%
|
45−50
+717%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−129%
|
85−90
+129%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 30−33 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−785%
|
110−120
+785%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−329%
|
90−95
+329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−717%
|
45−50
+717%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−350%
|
54
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−200%
|
40−45
+200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−129%
|
85−90
+129%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 30−33 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−360%
|
23
+360%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−785%
|
110−120
+785%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−152%
|
53
+152%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−283%
|
46
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−107%
|
29
+107%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+111%
|
18
−111%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−717%
|
45−50
+717%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−588%
|
110−120
+588%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 8−9 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 685 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 775% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 800% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 780M is 1100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 111% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 780M is 3050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 56 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.54 | 18.32 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 15 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 685 has 114.3% lower power consumption.
Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has a 621.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
