Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs HD Graphics 620

Place in the ranking	841	827
Place by popularity	63	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.11	24.89
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	no data
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 August 2016 (8 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 cores	192	no data
Core clock speed	300 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	3	no data
TMUs	24	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

Ring Bus

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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4	no data
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	no data
Memory bus width	System Shared	no data
Memory clock speed	System Shared	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

Portable Device Dependent

no 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.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	3.0	no 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 620 2.43

Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.54
+4.5%

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 620 935

Qualcomm Adreno 685 979
+4.7%

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 620 1509

Qualcomm Adreno 685 1927
+27.7%

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

13
+8.3%

12−14

−8.3%

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	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Battlefield 5	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	6 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	25 +92.3%	12−14 −92.3%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2.7%	35−40 +2.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Battlefield 5	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
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	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2.7%	35−40 +2.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
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	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2.7%	35−40 +2.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−20%

6−7
+20%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

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	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%

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

0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

0−1

This is how HD Graphics 620 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 620 is 8% 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 HD Graphics 620 is 92% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 620 is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 34 tests (61%)
there's a draw in 18 tests (32%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.43	2.54
Recency	30 August 2016	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has a 4.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 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 620 and Qualcomm Adreno 685.

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