Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs HD Graphics 520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 520 and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 520
2015
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
2.16

Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms HD Graphics 520 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking864860
Place by popularity42not in top-100
Power efficiency9.8721.35
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)no data
GPU code nameSkylake GT2no data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)6 December 2018 (6 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 cores192no data
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate21.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.3456 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3no data
TMUs24no 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

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4no data
Maximum RAM amount32 GBno 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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no 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 520 2.16
Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.18
+0.9%

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 520 831
Qualcomm Adreno 680 839
+1%

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 520 1294
Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936
+49.6%

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:

900p20
+11.1%
18−21
−11.1%
Full HD10
+0%
10−12
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.6%
35−40
+5.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.6%
35−40
+5.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.6%
35−40
+5.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 1−2
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

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

Full HD
High Preset

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

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 520 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 520 is 11% faster in 900p
  • A tie in 1080p

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 43 tests (75%)
  • there's a draw in 14 tests (25%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.16 2.18
Recency 1 September 2015 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 0.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 520 and Qualcomm Adreno 680.


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 520
HD Graphics 520
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 3116 votes

Rate HD Graphics 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 38 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.