GeForce 940M vs Qualcomm Adreno 690

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 and GeForce 940M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Qualcomm Adreno 690
2018
7 Watt
2.73

940M outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking814796
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency26.746.09
Architectureno dataMaxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameno dataGM108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date6 December 2018 (6 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 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 data1072 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1176 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data28.22
Floating-point processing powerno data0.9032 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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 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 dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimus-+
GameWorks-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-+

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2.73
GeForce 940M 2.93
+7.3%

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 690 1050
GeForce 940M 1127
+7.3%

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 690 2912
+21.1%
GeForce 940M 2406

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2933
+80.8%
GeForce 940M 1622

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 16708
+89.5%
GeForce 940M 8819

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 HD22
+15.8%
19
−15.8%
1440p85−90
−12.9%
96
+12.9%
4K18−20
−11.1%
20
+11.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−113%
17
+113%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−120%
11
+120%
Fortnite 12−14
−177%
36
+177%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%
Valorant 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−62.5%
13
+62.5%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−38.8%
68
+38.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 43
−14%
49
+14%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−100%
10
+100%
Fortnite 12−14
+8.3%
12
−8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+90%
10
−90%
Valorant 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−37.5%
11
+37.5%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 35
−28.6%
45
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−100%
10
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+50%
6
−50%
Valorant 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Valorant 21−24
−13%
24−27
+13%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Valorant 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and GeForce 940M compete in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 16% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce 940M is 13% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce 940M is 11% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 100% faster.
  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 940M is 177% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 690 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
  • GeForce 940M is ahead in 33 tests (56%)
  • there's a draw in 21 test (36%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.73 2.93
Recency 6 December 2018 13 March 2015
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 75 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 690 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 971.4% lower power consumption.

GeForce 940M, on the other hand, has a 7.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Qualcomm Adreno 690 and GeForce 940M.

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 690
Adreno 690
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
GeForce 940M

Other comparisons

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.


2.5 11 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 711 votes

Rate GeForce 940M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Qualcomm Adreno 690 or GeForce 940M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.