Arc A370M vs Qualcomm Adreno 680

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 and Arc A370M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Qualcomm Adreno 680
2018
7 Watt
2.18

Arc A370M outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking860386
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.3525.99
Architectureno dataGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameno dataDG2-128
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date6 December 2018 (6 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 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 coresno data1024
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1550 MHz
Number of transistorsno data7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data99.20
Floating-point processing powerno data3.174 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8

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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data112.0 GB/s
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
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.

Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.18
Arc A370M 13.27
+509%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 680 839
Arc A370M 5115
+510%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936
Arc A370M 12090
+525%

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 HD6−7
−550%
39
+550%
1440p3−4
−600%
21
+600%
4K6−7
−567%
40
+567%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−820%
46
+820%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−300%
35−40
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−3200%
33
+3200%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1175%
50−55
+1175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−357%
30−35
+357%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−640%
37
+640%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−640%
35−40
+640%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−629%
100−110
+629%
Hitman 3 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−281%
80−85
+281%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−325%
50−55
+325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−111%
80−85
+111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−300%
35−40
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1175%
50−55
+1175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−357%
30−35
+357%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−400%
25
+400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−640%
35−40
+640%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−629%
100−110
+629%
Hitman 3 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−281%
80−85
+281%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−417%
62
+417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−164%
35−40
+164%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−111%
80−85
+111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−300%
35−40
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−357%
30−35
+357%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21
+320%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−640%
35−40
+640%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−629%
100−110
+629%
Hitman 3 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−281%
80−85
+281%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−342%
53
+342%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−85.7%
26
+85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+153%
15
−153%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−675%
30−35
+675%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−500%
24−27
+500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Hitman 3 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−357%
30−35
+357%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−500%
95−100
+500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−333%
24−27
+333%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1400%
14−16
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 21−24
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 6−7

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+0%
37
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 680 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A370M is 550% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A370M is 600% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A370M is 567% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 153% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A370M is 3200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Arc A370M is ahead in 59 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.18 13.27
Recency 6 December 2018 30 March 2022
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 35 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has 400% lower power consumption.

Arc A370M, on the other hand, has a 508.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.


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.


Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680
Intel Arc A370M
Arc A370M

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.


3.4 38 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 165 votes

Rate Arc A370M 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.