Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs UHD Graphics 610
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 610 and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms UHD Graphics 610 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 912 | 880 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9 Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | no data |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT1 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 January 2019 (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.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 12 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.60 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 0.2016 gflops | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | no 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 type | DDR3/DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | - |
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 | 8
+0%
| 8−9
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−15.2%
|
35−40
+15.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−15.2%
|
35−40
+15.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−15.2%
|
35−40
+15.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how UHD Graphics 610 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 610 is 17% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 367% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 610 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 45 tests (79%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.89 | 2.04 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 7.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between UHD Graphics 610 and Qualcomm Adreno 680.
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.
