Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Radeon Vega 8 Efficient

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated822
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data25.12
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)no data
GPU code nameRavenno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 April 2018 (6 years ago)6 December 2018 (5 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 cores512no data
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,940 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate35.20no data
Floating-point processing power1.126 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs32no 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).

InterfaceIGPno data
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
Shared memoryno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 April 2018 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has an age advantage of 7 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Vega 8 Efficient and Qualcomm Adreno 685. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon Vega 8 Efficient 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
Qualcomm Adreno 685
Adreno 685

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 53 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 8 Efficient on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 15 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 685 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.