Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS vs Radeon 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 680M with Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 680M
2023
50 Watt
15.98
+44.2%

680M outperforms Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking336422
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency22.1225.57
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)no data
GPU code nameRembrandt+no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date3 January 2023 (1 year ago)no data (2024 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 cores7681536
Core clock speed2000 MHzno data
Boost clock speed2200 MHz1250 MHz
Number of transistors13,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology6 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate105.6no data
Floating-point processing power3.379 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs48no data
Ray Tracing Cores12no 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8no data
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeSystem SharedLPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Shared8448 MHz
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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12_1
Shader Model6.7no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.3-

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.

Radeon 680M 15.98
+44.2%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 11.08

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.

Radeon 680M 10371
+63.4%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 6346

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.

Radeon 680M 6865
+9.1%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 6294

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.

Radeon 680M 43225
+23.9%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 34890

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Radeon 680M 2303
+34.5%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 1712

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 HD37
+2.8%
36
−2.8%
1440p17
+0%
17
+0%
4K11
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 39
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+46.7%
75−80
−46.7%
Hitman 3 32
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+56.4%
55−60
−56.4%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+54.5%
55−60
−54.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+50%
14−16
−50%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+46.7%
75−80
−46.7%
Hitman 3 30
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+56.4%
55−60
−56.4%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 47
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+54.5%
55−60
−54.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+50%
18−20
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+70%
10−11
−70%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+46.7%
75−80
−46.7%
Hitman 3 27
+50%
18−20
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+50%
16−18
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18
+50%
12−14
−50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+44.6%
65−70
−44.6%
Hitman 3 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
+50%
18−20
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+70%
10−11
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+50%
70−75
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+48.3%
60−65
−48.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%

This is how Radeon 680M and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 57% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.98 11.08
Chip lithography 6 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 30 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 44.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS, on the other hand, has a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 680M is a desktop card while Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS

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.


4.2 930 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 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.