Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) and Qualcomm Adreno 685, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 685 outperforms R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) by a whopping 114% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1152 | 914 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 23.25 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | no data |
| GPU code name | Beema | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 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 | 128 | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.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 | 6
−100%
| 12−14
+100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−72%
|
40−45
+72%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−90.9%
|
21−24
+90.9%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 16−18 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) 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 Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 685 performs better in 42 tests (79%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 2.12 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
Qualcomm Adreno 685 has a 114.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Qualcomm Adreno 685 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
