Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) and Qualcomm Adreno 685, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms R4 (Stoney Ridge) by a whopping 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1077 | 836 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.36 | 24.96 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | no data |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 6 December 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 cores | 192 | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
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 bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 |
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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 8
−100%
| 16−18
+100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−76.9%
|
45−50
+76.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how R4 (Stoney Ridge) and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 100% 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 685 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 37 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 2.37 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 685 has a 117.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
The Qualcomm Adreno 685 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
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.
