UHD Graphics 617 vs Qualcomm Adreno 690

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 with UHD Graphics 617, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm Adreno 690
2018
7 Watt
2.66
+19.3%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 outperforms UHD Graphics 617 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking806852
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency26.3010.29
Architectureno dataGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameno dataAmber Lake GT2
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 December 2018 (5 years ago)7 November 2018 (6 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 data192
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1050 MHz
Manufacturing process technology5 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rateno data25.20
Floating-point processing powerno data0.4032 TFLOPS
ROPsno data3
TMUsno data24

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 dataRing Bus
Widthno dataIGP

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem 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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
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 690 2.66
+19.3%
UHD Graphics 617 2.23

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
+19.1%
UHD Graphics 617 862

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2912
+89%
UHD Graphics 617 1541

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2933
+194%
UHD Graphics 617 997

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 16708
+131%
UHD Graphics 617 7231

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Qualcomm Adreno 690 811
+170%
UHD Graphics 617 300

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 HD22
+57.1%
14
−57.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Hitman 3 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Hitman 3 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Hitman 3 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+82.4%
16−18
−82.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
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
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and UHD Graphics 617 compete in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 57% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 1100% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 617 is 33% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 690 is ahead in 52 tests (98%)
  • UHD Graphics 617 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.66 2.23
Chip lithography 5 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 15 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 690 has a 19.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm Adreno 690 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 617 in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook card while UHD Graphics 617 is a desktop 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 690
Adreno 690
Intel UHD Graphics 617
UHD Graphics 617

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.


2.8 9 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 77 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 617 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.