Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs GeForce RTX 2070

Place in the ranking	94	822
Place by popularity	99	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	33.61	no data
Power efficiency	16.56	25.12
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	no data
GPU code name	TU106	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 October 2018 (6 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	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	2304	no data
Core clock speed	1410 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1620 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	10,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	233.3	no data
Floating-point processing power	7.465 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	144	no data
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	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	GDDR6	no data
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	448.0 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, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C	no data
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (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.

RTX 2070 41.86
+1548%

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.

RTX 2070 16147
+1549%

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.

RTX 2070 31260
+1522%

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	128 +1729%	7−8 −1729%
1440p	86 +1620%	5−6 −1620%
4K	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.90	no data
1440p	5.80	no data
4K	8.32	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

70−75
+1380%

5−6

−1380%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	101 +1022%	9−10 −1022%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	87	0−1
Battlefield 5	164 +4000%	4−5 −4000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	116 +1557%	7−8 −1557%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Far Cry 5	124 +2380%	5−6 −2380%
Far Cry New Dawn	148 +2014%	7−8 −2014%
Forza Horizon 4	246 +1792%	12−14 −1792%
Hitman 3	116 +1557%	7−8 −1557%
Horizon Zero Dawn	258 +1129%	21−24 −1129%
Metro Exodus	144 +7100%	2−3 −7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	110 +1733%	6−7 −1733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	207 +1625%	12−14 −1625%
Watch Dogs: Legion	254 +568%	35−40 −568%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	135 +1400%	9−10 −1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73	0−1
Battlefield 5	156 +3800%	4−5 −3800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	106 +1414%	7−8 −1414%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Far Cry 5	101 +1920%	5−6 −1920%
Far Cry New Dawn	108 +1443%	7−8 −1443%
Forza Horizon 4	227 +1646%	12−14 −1646%
Hitman 3	113 +1514%	7−8 −1514%
Horizon Zero Dawn	248 +1081%	21−24 −1081%
Metro Exodus	144 +7100%	2−3 −7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	108 +1700%	6−7 −1700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 +1192%	12−14 −1192%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +514%	14−16 −514%
Watch Dogs: Legion	244 +542%	35−40 −542%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	64 +611%	9−10 −611%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	78 +1014%	7−8 −1014%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Far Cry 5	79 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +746%	12−14 −746%
Hitman 3	94 +1243%	7−8 −1243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	139 +562%	21−24 −562%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 +1192%	12−14 −1192%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	87 +521%	14−16 −521%
Watch Dogs: Legion	64 +68.4%	35−40 −68.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

99
+1550%

6−7

−1550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	106 +2550%	4−5 −2550%
Far Cry New Dawn	75 +1775%	4−5 −1775%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	52 +2500%	2−3 −2500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Far Cry 5	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Forza Horizon 4	215 +1692%	12−14 −1692%
Hitman 3	64 +700%	8−9 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	104 +1386%	7−8 −1386%
Metro Exodus	82 +1950%	4−5 −1950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +1617%	6−7 −1617%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	240 +1400%	16−18 −1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

84
+1300%

6−7

−1300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Far Cry New Dawn	44 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Hitman 3	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +1557%	7−8 −1557%
Metro Exodus	76 +1800%	4−5 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	63 +2000%	3−4 −2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	33 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	31 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Forza Horizon 4	63 +2000%	3−4 −2000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +1833%	3−4 −1833%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

47
+1075%

4−5

−1075%

This is how RTX 2070 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

RTX 2070 is 1729% faster in 1080p
RTX 2070 is 1620% faster in 1440p
RTX 2070 is 1900% 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 RTX 2070 is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RTX 2070 surpassed Qualcomm Adreno 685 in all 57 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	41.86	2.54
Recency	17 October 2018	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	7 Watt

RTX 2070 has a 1548% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 2400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook one.

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