Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs Qualcomm Adreno 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 690 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 814 | 880 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (5 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 7 Watt |
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.
| Shared memory | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
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.
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 | 21
+31.3%
| 16−18
−31.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 31% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 400% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 56% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 690 is ahead in 59 tests (98%)
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.65 | 2.04 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 7 nm |
Qualcomm Adreno 690 has a 29.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The Qualcomm Adreno 690 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
