Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs HD Graphics 4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4000 with Qualcomm Adreno 680, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4000
2012
1.18

Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms HD Graphics 4000 by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1060866
Place by popularity42not in top-100
Power efficiency1.8220.83
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)no data
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT2no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 May 2012 (12 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 cores128no data
Core clock speed650 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology22 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown7 Watt
Texture fill rate16.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPSno data
ROPs2no data
TMUs16no 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).

InterfaceRing Busno data
WidthIGPno 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 typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.0no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-

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.

HD Graphics 4000 1.18
Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.10
+78%

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.

HD Graphics 4000 454
Qualcomm Adreno 680 810
+78.4%

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.

HD Graphics 4000 523
Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936
+270%

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:

900p12
−75%
21−24
+75%
Full HD11
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−18.8%
35−40
+18.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−18.8%
35−40
+18.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−18.8%
35−40
+18.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 2−3
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 2−3
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 2−3

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 4000 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 75% faster in 900p
  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 64% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 45 tests (82%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 2.10
Recency 14 May 2012 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 78% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Qualcomm Adreno 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4000 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 4000
HD Graphics 4000
Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 5170 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 32 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.