Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs and Qualcomm Adreno 690, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 664 | 814 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.19 | 26.74 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (6 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 cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 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 | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 |
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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 18
−22.2%
| 22
+22.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Valorant | 36
−22.2%
|
40−45
+22.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 25
−96%
|
45−50
+96%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
−65.4%
|
43
+65.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−26.7%
|
19
+26.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+27.3%
|
40−45
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−45.8%
|
35
+45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+27.3%
|
40−45
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+104%
|
21−24
−104%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 22% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 400% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 96% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is ahead in 52 tests (88%)
- Qualcomm Adreno 690 is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.57 | 2.73 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 7 Watt |
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has a 67.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Qualcomm Adreno 690, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
