Radeon Pro W6600 vs Qualcomm Adreno 685

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 685 with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm Adreno 685
2018
7 Watt
2.54

Pro W6600 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 685 by a whopping 1491% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking81998
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data70.32
Power efficiency25.1327.99
Architectureno dataRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameno dataNavi 23
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 December 2018 (5 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 data1792
Core clock speedno data2331 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2903 MHz
Number of transistorsno data11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rateno data325.1
Floating-point processing powerno data10.4 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 data241 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.2

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
Pro W6600 40.42
+1491%

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
Pro W6600 15596
+1493%

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
−1400%
75−80
+1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1456%
140−150
+1456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−1438%
200−210
+1438%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1483%
95−100
+1483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1483%
190−200
+1483%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1479%
600−650
+1479%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1456%
140−150
+1456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−1438%
200−210
+1438%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1483%
95−100
+1483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1483%
190−200
+1483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1471%
220−230
+1471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1479%
600−650
+1479%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1456%
140−150
+1456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−1438%
200−210
+1438%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1483%
190−200
+1483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1471%
220−230
+1471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1479%
600−650
+1479%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1483%
95−100
+1483%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1400%
45−50
+1400%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1400%
120−130
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−1471%
110−120
+1471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−1463%
250−260
+1463%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1483%
95−100
+1483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.54 40.42
Recency 6 December 2018 8 June 2021
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 100 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has 1328.6% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 1491.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook card while Radeon Pro W6600 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 685
Adreno 685
AMD Radeon Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

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
4.2 64 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 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.