Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Place in the ranking	664	831
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	20.65	24.98
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	no data
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 April 2018 (6 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	384	no data
Core clock speed	300 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1050 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	50.40	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	6	no data
TMUs	48	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	System Shared	no data
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	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	1.3	-

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.50
+77.2%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1731
+77.5%

Qualcomm Adreno 685 975

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 2894
+50.2%

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	19 +90%	10−12 −90%
1440p	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
4K	15 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Elden Ring	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Metro Exodus	11 +175%	4−5 −175%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Valorant	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Dota 2	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Elden Ring	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Far Cry 5	16 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Fortnite	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +70.8%	24−27 −70.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Valorant	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
World of Tanks	50 +6.4%	45−50 −6.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Dota 2	28 +367%	6−7 −367%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +62.5%	24−27 −62.5%
Valorant	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Elden Ring	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Grand Theft Auto V	4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
World of Tanks	30−35 +88.2%	16−18 −88.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
World of Tanks	12 +100%	6−7 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	12 −33.3%	16−18 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Fortnite	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Valorant	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 90% faster in 1080p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 100% faster in 1440p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 88% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 367% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 33% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is ahead in 48 tests (92%)
Qualcomm Adreno 685 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.50	2.54
Recency	3 April 2018	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	7 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 77.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 685 in performance tests.

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