Radeon Graphics 384SP vs Qualcomm Adreno 685

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking822not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency25.12no data
Architectureno dataGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameno dataCezanne
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 December 2018 (5 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 data384
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1700 MHz
Number of transistorsno data9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rateno data40.80
Floating-point processing powerno data1.306 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24

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 dataIGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Shared memory+no data

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 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.7 (6.4)
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 December 2018 13 April 2021
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 45 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 685 has 542.9% lower power consumption.

Graphics 384SP, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

We couldn't decide between Qualcomm Adreno 685 and Radeon Graphics 384SP. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 685 is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics 384SP is a desktop one.


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 685
Adreno 685
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP

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.


3.7 15 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 685 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 20 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP 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.