Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs GeForce RTX 2080

Place in the ranking	64	822
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	27.64	no data
Power efficiency	15.69	25.12
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	no data
GPU code name	TU104	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	20 September 2018 (6 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$699	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	2944	no data
Core clock speed	1515 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1710 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	13,600 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	215 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	314.6	no data
Floating-point processing power	10.07 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	184	no data
Tensor Cores	368	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	46	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	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 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 HDMI, 3x 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 2080 48.72
+1818%

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 2080 18796
+1820%

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 2080 40278
+1990%

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	143 +1943%	7−8 −1943%
1440p	99 +1880%	5−6 −1880%
4K	70 +2233%	3−4 −2233%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.89	no data
1440p	7.06	no data
4K	9.99	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

85−90
+1680%

5−6

−1680%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	105 +1067%	9−10 −1067%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	98	0−1
Battlefield 5	194 +4750%	4−5 −4750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	132 +1786%	7−8 −1786%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Far Cry 5	127 +2440%	5−6 −2440%
Far Cry New Dawn	165 +2257%	7−8 −2257%
Forza Horizon 4	262 +1915%	12−14 −1915%
Hitman 3	135 +1829%	7−8 −1829%
Horizon Zero Dawn	263 +1152%	21−24 −1152%
Metro Exodus	144 +7100%	2−3 −7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	109 +1717%	6−7 −1717%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	215 +1692%	12−14 −1692%
Watch Dogs: Legion	253 +566%	35−40 −566%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	153 +1600%	9−10 −1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	83	0−1
Battlefield 5	182 +4450%	4−5 −4450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	117 +1571%	7−8 −1571%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Far Cry 5	102 +1940%	5−6 −1940%
Far Cry New Dawn	126 +1700%	7−8 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	243 +1769%	12−14 −1769%
Hitman 3	131 +1771%	7−8 −1771%
Horizon Zero Dawn	254 +1110%	21−24 −1110%
Metro Exodus	144 +7100%	2−3 −7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	117 +1850%	6−7 −1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 +1458%	12−14 −1458%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +621%	14−16 −621%
Watch Dogs: Legion	243 +539%	35−40 −539%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	68 +656%	9−10 −656%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	90 +1186%	7−8 −1186%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Far Cry 5	81 +1520%	5−6 −1520%
Forza Horizon 4	132 +915%	12−14 −915%
Hitman 3	115 +1543%	7−8 −1543%
Horizon Zero Dawn	169 +705%	21−24 −705%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 +1458%	12−14 −1458%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	106 +657%	14−16 −657%
Watch Dogs: Legion	79 +108%	35−40 −108%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

99
+1550%

6−7

−1550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	123 +2975%	4−5 −2975%
Far Cry New Dawn	88 +2100%	4−5 −2100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	69 +3350%	2−3 −3350%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Far Cry 5	70 +2233%	3−4 −2233%
Forza Horizon 4	212 +2020%	10−11 −2020%
Hitman 3	80 +900%	8−9 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +1743%	7−8 −1743%
Metro Exodus	89 +2125%	4−5 −2125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +1967%	6−7 −1967%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Watch Dogs: Legion	239 +1394%	16−18 −1394%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

95
+1483%

6−7

−1483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +6500%	1−2 −6500%
Far Cry New Dawn	50 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Hitman 3	48 +2300%	2−3 −2300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	117 +1850%	6−7 −1850%
Metro Exodus	82 +1950%	4−5 −1950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	76 +2433%	3−4 −2433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20	0−1
Far Cry 5	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Forza Horizon 4	81 +1925%	4−5 −1925%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +2233%	3−4 −2233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

59
+1375%

4−5

−1375%

This is how RTX 2080 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

RTX 2080 is 1943% faster in 1080p
RTX 2080 is 1880% faster in 1440p
RTX 2080 is 2233% 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 2080 is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RTX 2080 surpassed Qualcomm Adreno 685 in all 57 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	48.72	2.54
Recency	20 September 2018	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	215 Watt	7 Watt

RTX 2080 has a 1818.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 2971.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 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.