Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Radeon RX 460

Place in the ranking	434	832
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.12	no data
Power efficiency	9.78	24.94
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	no data
GPU code name	Baffin	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	8 August 2016 (8 years ago)	6 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$86	no data

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	896	no data
Core clock speed	1090 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,000 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	no data
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	56	no data

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	PCIe 3.0 x8	no data
Length	170 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	no data
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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	no data
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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.

RX 460 10.67
+320%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.54

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.

RX 460 4102
+321%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 975

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.

RX 460 8597
+346%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 1927

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	40 +344%	9−10 −344%
1440p	70 +338%	16−18 −338%
4K	21 +425%	4−5 −425%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.15	no data
1440p	1.23	no data
4K	4.10	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18 +125%	8−9 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +250%	6−7 −250%
Elden Ring	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +250%	6−7 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +231%	12−14 −231%
Metro Exodus	41 +925%	4−5 −925%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Valorant	40−45 +4100%	1−2 −4100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +250%	6−7 −250%
Dota 2	24 +300%	6−7 −300%
Elden Ring	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Far Cry 5	44 +193%	14−16 −193%
Fortnite	60−65 +343%	14−16 −343%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +231%	12−14 −231%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +483%	6−7 −483%
Metro Exodus	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	51 +113%	24−27 −113%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%
Valorant	40−45 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
World of Tanks	150−160 +221%	45−50 −221%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	33 +450%	6−7 −450%
Counter-Strike 2	10 +25%	8−9 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +250%	6−7 −250%
Dota 2	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +187%	14−16 −187%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +231%	12−14 −231%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	28 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%
Valorant	40−45 +4100%	1−2 −4100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Elden Ring	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +178%	18−20 −178%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
World of Tanks	75−80 +347%	16−18 −347%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Valorant	24−27 +189%	9−10 −189%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Dota 2	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Elden Ring	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	32 +357%	7−8 −357%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Fortnite	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Valorant	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%

This is how RX 460 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

RX 460 is 344% faster in 1080p
RX 460 is 338% faster in 1440p
RX 460 is 425% faster in 4K

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

in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 460 is 4100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 460 is ahead in 57 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.67	2.54
Recency	8 August 2016	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	7 Watt

RX 460 has a 320.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 971.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 460 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook one.

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