GeForce GTX 850A vs Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS

Place in the ranking	436	809
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	24.40	4.17
Architecture	no data	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	no data	GM107
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	no data	17 March 2014 (10 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 cores	1536	640
Core clock speed	no data	902 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	936 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	37.44
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	40

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 3.0 x16

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	LPDDR5x	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	8448 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.1.126
CUDA	-	5.0

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	35 +338%	8−9 −338%
1440p	18 +350%	4−5 −350%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+360%

5−6
−360%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%
Counter-Strike 2	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	50 +317%	12−14 −317%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +314%	7−8 −314%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Valorant	40−45 +310%	10−11 −310%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%
Counter-Strike 2	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Dota 2	35 +338%	8−9 −338%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +320%	10−11 −320%
Fortnite	60−65 +343%	14−16 −343%
Forza Horizon 4	42 +320%	10−11 −320%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +338%	8−9 −338%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +314%	7−8 −314%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +350%	18−20 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Valorant	40−45 +310%	10−11 −310%
World of Tanks	150−160 +331%	35−40 −331%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%
Counter-Strike 2	14 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +320%	10−11 −320%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +300%	9−10 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +350%	18−20 −350%
Valorant	40−45 +310%	10−11 −310%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
World of Tanks	75−80 +322%	18−20 −322%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Forza Horizon 4	28 +300%	7−8 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Valorant	24−27 +333%	6−7 −333%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Dota 2	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Fortnite	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Valorant	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%

This is how Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS and GTX 850A compete in popular games:

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 338% faster in 1080p
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 350% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.92	2.55
Chip lithography	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	45 Watt

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS has a 289% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 850A in performance tests.

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