Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs GeForce GTX 1660

Place in the ranking	182	822
Place by popularity	52	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	48.74	no data
Power efficiency	17.44	25.08
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	no data
GPU code name	TU116	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$219	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	1408	no data
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	no data
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	48	no data
TMUs	88	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	1x 8-pin	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	6 GB	no data
Memory bus width	192 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	2001 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	192.1 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 1660 30.27
+1092%

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.

GTX 1660 11677
+1093%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 979

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 1660 21064
+993%

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	82 +1267%	6−7 −1267%
1440p	49 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
4K	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.67	no data
1440p	4.47	no data
4K	8.11	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

71
+1320%

5−6

−1320%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	59	0−1
Battlefield 5	95−100 +2375%	4−5 −2375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 +943%	7−8 −943%
Cyberpunk 2077	58 +1060%	5−6 −1060%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +1260%	5−6 −1260%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +1000%	7−8 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +1169%	12−14 −1169%
Hitman 3	69 +886%	7−8 −886%
Horizon Zero Dawn	306 +1357%	21−24 −1357%
Metro Exodus	144 +7100%	2−3 −7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 +1767%	6−7 −1767%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +775%	12−14 −775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	227 +497%	35−40 −497%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	123 +1267%	9−10 −1267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42	0−1
Battlefield 5	95−100 +2375%	4−5 −2375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	67 +857%	7−8 −857%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +840%	5−6 −840%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +1260%	5−6 −1260%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +1000%	7−8 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +1169%	12−14 −1169%
Hitman 3	67 +857%	7−8 −857%
Horizon Zero Dawn	287 +1267%	21−24 −1267%
Metro Exodus	113 +5550%	2−3 −5550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	79 +1217%	6−7 −1217%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110 +817%	12−14 −817%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +357%	14−16 −357%
Watch Dogs: Legion	214 +463%	35−40 −463%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	49 +600%	7−8 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 +700%	5−6 −700%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +1260%	5−6 −1260%
Forza Horizon 4	98 +654%	12−14 −654%
Hitman 3	59 +743%	7−8 −743%
Horizon Zero Dawn	93 +343%	21−24 −343%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	95 +692%	12−14 −692%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +307%	14−16 −307%
Watch Dogs: Legion	29 −31%	35−40 +31%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

81
+1250%

6−7

−1250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +1325%	4−5 −1325%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +1050%	4−5 −1050%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +1067%	3−4 −1067%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +1143%	14−16 −1143%
Hitman 3	39 +388%	8−9 −388%
Horizon Zero Dawn	67 +857%	7−8 −857%
Metro Exodus	59 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	67 +1240%	5−6 −1240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	187 +1069%	16−18 −1069%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

53
+783%

6−7

−783%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Hitman 3	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	63 +1160%	5−6 −1160%
Metro Exodus	44 +1367%	3−4 −1367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	10	0−1
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	50 +1150%	4−5 −1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

26
+550%

4−5

−550%

This is how GTX 1660 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 1267% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 1125% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 1250% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 7100% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 31% faster.

All in all, in popular games: