Apple M4 16-core GPU vs Qualcomm Adreno 690
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 805 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.02 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 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 cores | no data | 16 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | no data |
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 | LPDDR5x-8533 |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
We couldn't decide between Qualcomm Adreno 690 and M4 16-core GPU. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook card while Apple M4 16-core GPU is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
