Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs GeForce GTX 960M

Place in the ranking	489	808
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.14	26.50
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	no data
GPU code name	GM107	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	13 March 2015 (9 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	640	no data
Core clock speed	1096 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1176 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	47.04	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.505 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	40	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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	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	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	80 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
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-
Ansel	+	-

API 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	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
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.

GTX 960M 8.75
+229%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2.66

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 960M 3374
+229%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 1027

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 960M 5278
+81.3%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2912

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.

GTX 960M 4318
+47.2%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2933

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 960M 30086
+80.1%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 16708

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 960M 1148
+41.6%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 811

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	95 +252%	27−30 −252%
Full HD	34 +54.5%	22 −54.5%
1440p	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
4K	14 +250%	4−5 −250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16
+75%

8−9

−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +92.3%	12−14 −92.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Battlefield 5	30 +150%	12−14 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Far Cry 5	28 +180%	10−11 −180%
Far Cry New Dawn	31 +121%	14−16 −121%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +180%	30−33 −180%
Hitman 3	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +61.3%	30−35 −61.3%
Metro Exodus	31 +182%	10−12 −182%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	48 +167%	18−20 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +28.3%	45−50 −28.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	31 +138%	12−14 −138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Battlefield 5	23 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Far Cry 5	24 +140%	10−11 −140%
Far Cry New Dawn	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +137%	30−33 −137%
Hitman 3	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +61.3%	30−35 −61.3%
Metro Exodus	26 +136%	10−12 −136%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +329%	16−18 −329%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +28.3%	45−50 −28.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	11 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Far Cry 5	18 +80%	10−11 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	25 −20%	30−33 +20%
Hitman 3	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +61.3%	30−35 −61.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +55.6%	9 −55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +28.3%	45−50 −28.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
+84.6%

12−14

−84.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	15 +114%	7−8 −114%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +350%	10−11 −350%
Hitman 3	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +63.6%	10−12 −63.6%
Metro Exodus	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +80.6%	30−35 −80.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+66.7%

9−10

−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
Metro Exodus	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +900%	1−2 −900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+80%

5−6

−80%

This is how GTX 960M and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:

GTX 960M is 252% faster in 900p
GTX 960M is 55% faster in 1080p
GTX 960M is 275% faster in 1440p
GTX 960M is 250% faster in 4K

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960M is 900% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 20% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 960M is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
Qualcomm Adreno 690 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.75	2.66
Recency	13 March 2015	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	7 Watt

GTX 960M has a 228.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 690, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 971.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.

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