Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 497 | 867 |
| Place by popularity | 31 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.20 | 22.04 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | no data |
| GPU code name | Vega | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 512 | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 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.
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.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 | 23
+360%
| 5−6
−360%
|
| 1440p | 17
+325%
| 4−5
−325%
|
| 4K | 9
+350%
| 2−3
−350%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Valorant | 44
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+342%
|
12−14
−342%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Valorant | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| World of Tanks | 48
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+233%
|
21−24
−233%
|
| Valorant | 37
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| World of Tanks | 21
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 39
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 360% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 325% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 350% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 45 tests (92%)
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 4 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.61 | 2.15 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 6 December 2018 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 300.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Qualcomm Adreno 680, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 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.
