GeForce 8800 GT vs Qualcomm Adreno 690

Place in the ranking	806	1045
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	26.30	0.68
Architecture	no data	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	no data	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

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 cores	no data	112
Core clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	5 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	7 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	no data	33.60
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	56

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).

Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	57.6 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 Connectors	no data	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

no data

128bit

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	no data	4.0
OpenGL	no data	2.1
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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 690 2.66
+118%

8800 GT 1.22

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 690 1027
+118%

8800 GT 471

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

22
+120%

10−12

−120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

34.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +119%	21−24 −119%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +119%	21−24 −119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +119%	21−24 −119%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+160%

5−6
−160%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Hitman 3	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+125%

4−5

−125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 120% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.66	1.22
Recency	6 December 2018	29 October 2007
Chip lithography	5 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	7 Watt	105 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 690 has a 118% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm Adreno 690 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.