Qualcomm Adreno 685 vs Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

Place in the ranking	257	827
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	24.54	24.88
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	no data
GPU code name	TU106	no data
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	27 May 2019 (5 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	2304	no data
Core clock speed	600 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1215 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	10,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	175.0	no data
Floating-point processing power	5.599 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	144	no data
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	6 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	No outputs	no data
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 3000 Max-Q 21.48
+746%

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 3000 Max-Q 8278
+746%

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 3000 Max-Q 17523
+809%

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	74 +825%	8−9 −825%
1440p	46 +820%	5−6 −820%
4K	32 +967%	3−4 −967%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+580%

5−6

−580%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60	0−1
Battlefield 5	70−75 +1650%	4−5 −1650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65 +829%	7−8 −829%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +900%	5−6 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +714%	7−8 −714%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +900%	12−14 −900%
Hitman 3	88 +1157%	7−8 −1157%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +386%	21−24 −386%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +3600%	2−3 −3600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +1183%	6−7 −1183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +492%	12−14 −492%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +150%	35−40 −150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50	0−1
Battlefield 5	70−75 +1650%	4−5 −1650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	59 +743%	7−8 −743%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +900%	5−6 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +714%	7−8 −714%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +900%	12−14 −900%
Hitman 3	66 +843%	7−8 −843%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +386%	21−24 −386%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +3600%	2−3 −3600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	67 +1017%	6−7 −1017%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +492%	12−14 −492%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +236%	14−16 −236%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +150%	35−40 −150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	44	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45 +543%	7−8 −543%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +900%	5−6 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +900%	12−14 −900%
Hitman 3	59 +743%	7−8 −743%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +386%	21−24 −386%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +492%	12−14 −492%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +271%	14−16 −271%
Watch Dogs: Legion	33 −15.2%	35−40 +15.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

66
+1000%

6−7

−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +925%	4−5 −925%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +725%	4−5 −725%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +757%	14−16 −757%
Hitman 3	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +529%	7−8 −529%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +800%	5−6 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +681%	16−18 −681%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

47
+683%

6−7

−683%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Hitman 3	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +825%	12−14 −825%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 +750%	4−5 −750%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24
+500%

4−5

−500%

This is how RTX 3000 Max-Q and Qualcomm Adreno 685 compete in popular games:

RTX 3000 Max-Q is 825% faster in 1080p
RTX 3000 Max-Q is 820% faster in 1440p
RTX 3000 Max-Q is 967% 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 3000 Max-Q is 3600% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 15% faster.

All in all, in popular games: