Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Place in the ranking	264	865
Place by popularity	3	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	39.42	no data
Power efficiency	18.84	20.87
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	no data
GPU code name	TU117	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	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	1485 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1665 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	93.24	no data
Floating-point processing power	2.984 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	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 x16	no data
Length	229 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	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	128.0 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	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.5	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	7.5	-

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.

GTX 1650 20.40
+867%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.11

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.

GTX 1650 7873
+868%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 813

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.

GTX 1650 13645
+605%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936

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	67 +1017%	6−7 −1017%
1440p	37 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
4K	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.22	no data
1440p	4.03	no data
4K	6.21	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+540%

5−6

−540%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +489%	9−10 −489%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +4600%	1−2 −4600%
Battlefield 5	79 +1875%	4−5 −1875%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 +643%	7−8 −643%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Far Cry 5	64 +1180%	5−6 −1180%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 +1043%	7−8 −1043%
Forza Horizon 4	229 +1536%	14−16 −1536%
Hitman 3	49 +513%	8−9 −513%
Horizon Zero Dawn	292 +1290%	21−24 −1290%
Metro Exodus	101 +3267%	3−4 −3267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +1000%	7−8 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	115 +858%	12−14 −858%
Watch Dogs: Legion	224 +489%	35−40 −489%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	83 +822%	9−10 −822%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Battlefield 5	72 +1700%	4−5 −1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 +557%	7−8 −557%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Far Cry 5	52 +940%	5−6 −940%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 +700%	7−8 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +1336%	14−16 −1336%
Hitman 3	47 +488%	8−9 −488%
Horizon Zero Dawn	260 +1138%	21−24 −1138%
Metro Exodus	71 +2267%	3−4 −2267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +686%	7−8 −686%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	74 +517%	12−14 −517%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +229%	14−16 −229%
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 +442%	35−40 −442%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Far Cry 5	39 +680%	5−6 −680%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +364%	14−16 −364%
Hitman 3	41 +413%	8−9 −413%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +186%	21−24 −186%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +417%	12−14 −417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 −81%	35−40 +81%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

54
+671%

7−8

−671%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 +950%	4−5 −950%
Far Cry New Dawn	36 +800%	4−5 −800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +917%	12−14 −917%
Hitman 3	27 +238%	8−9 −238%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +514%	7−8 −514%
Metro Exodus	41 +925%	4−5 −925%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	145 +806%	16−18 −806%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35
+483%

6−7

−483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Hitman 3	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +925%	4−5 −925%
Metro Exodus	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	30	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

17
+325%

4−5

−325%

This is how GTX 1650 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 1017% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 1133% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 1100% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4600% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 81% faster.

All in all, in popular games: