Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with Qualcomm Adreno 690, including specs and performance data.
GTX 590 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a whopping 218% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 504 | 811 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.78 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.63 | 26.81 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | no data |
| GPU code name | GF110 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 ×2 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 7 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | no data |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 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.
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| 900p | 47
+236%
| 14−16
−236%
|
| Full HD | 111
+405%
| 22
−405%
|
| 1200p | 112
+220%
| 35−40
−220%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+88.6%
|
40−45
−88.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+161%
|
45−50
−161%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+41.9%
|
43
−41.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+10.5%
|
19
−10.5%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+88.6%
|
40−45
−88.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35
−74.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+133%
|
9
−133%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+88.6%
|
40−45
−88.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+250%
|
18−20
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+121%
|
18−20
−121%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+300%
|
21−24
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 590 and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:
- GTX 590 is 236% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 405% faster in 1080p
- GTX 590 is 220% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 590 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 590 is ahead in 58 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.64 | 2.72 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 7 Watt |
GTX 590 has a 217.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Qualcomm Adreno 690, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 5114.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
