Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs GeForce GT 635M

Place in the ranking	987	819
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.96	25.92
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	no data
GPU code name	GF116	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 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 cores	Up to 144	no data
Core clock speed	Up to 675 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	753 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,170 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.20	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.3888 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	24	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	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	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	Up to 192bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	Up to 43.2 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	No outputs	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
CUDA	+	-

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.

GT 635M 1.45

Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.54
+75.2%

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.

GT 635M 559

Qualcomm Adreno 685 979
+75.1%

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.

GT 635M 1110

Qualcomm Adreno 685 1927
+73.6%

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

−66.7%

40−45
+66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −225%	12−14 +225%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −15.2%	35−40 +15.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −225%	12−14 +225%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −15.2%	35−40 +15.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −225%	12−14 +225%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −15.2%	35−40 +15.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−50%

6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion

0−1

This is how GT 635M and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 67% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 225% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 47 tests (87%)
there's a draw in 7 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.45	2.54
Recency	22 March 2012	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has a 75.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm Adreno 685 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.

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