Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce MX350

Place in performance ranking	535	880
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	no data
GPU code name	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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	1354 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.98	no data
Floating-point performance	1.199 gflops	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
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	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	56.06 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GeForce MX350 7.26
+254%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.05

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

GeForce MX350 2802
+254%

Qualcomm Adreno 680 792

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.

GeForce MX350 6166
+219%

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	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
1440p	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
4K	25 +257%	7−8 −257%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+140%

5−6

−140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +144%	9−10 −144%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	26 +420%	5−6 −420%
Far Cry New Dawn	35 +400%	7−8 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +243%	14−16 −243%
Hitman 3	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +514%	21−24 −514%
Metro Exodus	37 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 +357%	7−8 −357%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95 +150%	35−40 −150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	26 +189%	9−10 −189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +143%	7−8 −143%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	23 +360%	5−6 −360%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +257%	7−8 −257%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +243%	14−16 −243%
Hitman 3	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +452%	21−24 −452%
Metro Exodus	28 +833%	3−4 −833%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +243%	7−8 −243%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	25 +108%	12−14 −108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	88 +132%	35−40 −132%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
Hitman 3	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 −5%	21−24 +5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 −533%	35−40 +533%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20
+186%

7−8

−186%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Hitman 3	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +188%	16−18 −188%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+100%

6−7

−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +300%	6−7 −300%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

This is how GeForce MX350 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is 286% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX350 is 286% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX350 is 257% 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 GeForce MX350 is 1200% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 533% faster.

All in all, in popular games: