Notebookcheck Logo

Samsung Xclipse 920 vs Qualcomm Adreno 642 vs Samsung Xclipse 940

Samsung Xclipse 920

► remove from comparison Samsung Xclipse 920

The Samsung Xclipse 920 GPU is an integrated graphics card in the Samsung Exynos 2200 SoC that is used in Android based smartphones and tablets. It was introduced in some models of the Galaxy S21 line. The iGPU is the first that uses an architecture by AMD (RDNA 2, like the Radeon 660M in the Ryzen 6000 chips). Current information from Geekbench ML points to 3 CUs (=192 shaders).

The performance is slightly below current high end iGPUs for phones like the Adreno 730 (Snapdrageon 8 Gen 1) or Apple A15 GPU, but still sufficient for all mobile games in 2022.

The Xclipse 920 is produced in the modern 4nm EUV process at Samsung (as its integrated in the Exynos 2200).

Qualcomm Adreno 642

► remove from comparison Qualcomm Adreno 642

The Qualcomm Adreno 642 is a smartphone and tablet GPU that is integrated within the Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G SoC. The chip will be available from mid 2021 and will be used mainly in upper mid-range Android devices.

According to Qualcomm, the Adreno 642 GPU offers a 50% improved performance over the Adreno 620, its predecessor, which is integrated in the Snapdragon 768G SoC. This is also thanks to the fast LPDDR4X-4200 memory support of the SoC.

The Adreno 642 supports OpenCL 2.0 FP, OpenGL ES 3.2 and Vulkan 1.1.

The Snapdragon 780G is manufactured in the modern 5nm LPPE process with EUV at Samsung that should provide a good power efficiency.

Samsung Xclipse 940

► remove from comparison Samsung Xclipse 940

The Samsung Xclipse 940 is a graphics chip for smartphones and tablets, integrated in the Samsung Exynos 2400 SoC (iGPU). It is based on the AMD RDNA 3 architecture and includes hardware ray tracing support. #

The performance is similar or slightly better than the older Adreno 740 in the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2.

The Exynos 2400 is the first Exynos processor to use a Fan-out Wafer Level Package (FOWLP) to boost thermal management.

The SoC is manufactured in the 4nm process at Samsung.

Samsung Xclipse 920Qualcomm Adreno 642Samsung Xclipse 940
Xclipse 900 Series
Xclipse 950 8
Xclipse 940
Xclipse 920 192 @ 0.56 GHz
Adreno 660
Adreno 650 @ 0.25 - 0.67 GHz
Adreno 690
Adreno 685
Adreno 680
Adreno 644
Adreno 643 @ 0.81 GHz
Adreno 642
Adreno 642L
Adreno 640
Adreno 630
Adreno 620
Adreno 619
Adreno 619L
Adreno 618
Adreno 616
Adreno 613 @ 0.96 GHz
Adreno 612
Adreno 610
Xclipse 950 8
Xclipse 940
Xclipse 920 192 @ 0.56 GHz
CodenameRDNA 2
ArchitectureRDNA 2
Pipelines192 - unified
Core Speed555 (Boost) MHz
Shared Memoryyesyesyes
technology4 nm5 nm4 nm
FeaturesOpenGL ES 3.2, OpenCL 2.0, DirectX 12, Vulkan 1.1OpenGL ES 3.2, OpenCL 2.0, DirectX 12, Vulkan 1.1OpenGL ES 3.2, OpenCL 2.0, DirectX 12, Vulkan 1.1
Date of Announcement18.01.2022 07.05.2021 09.10.2023
Link to Manufacturer Pagesemiconductor.samsung.com
APIOpenGL ES 3.2
CPU in Xclipse 920GPU Base SpeedGPU Boost / Turbo
Samsung Exynos 22008 x 1820 MHz? MHz555 MHz
CPU in Adreno 642GPU Base SpeedGPU Boost / Turbo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G8 x 1900 MHz? MHz? MHz
CPU in Xclipse 940GPU Base SpeedGPU Boost / Turbo
Samsung Exynos 240010 x 2000 MHz? MHz? MHz
Samsung Exynos 2400e10 x 2000 MHz? MHz? MHz
min. - max.? MHz? MHz

Benchmarks

3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0) Unlimited
min: 10206     avg: 10662     median: 10610 (46%)     max: 11221 Points
5587 Points (24%)
min: 15466     avg: 17363     median: 17362.5 (75%)     max: 19259 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0) Unlimited Graphics
min: 17842     avg: 19764     median: 18631.5 (41%)     max: 23949 Points
8380 Points (18%)
min: 34989     avg: 35721     median: 35720.5 (79%)     max: 36452 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
min: 8268     avg: 8617     median: 8547.5 (36%)     max: 9105 Points
4478 Points (19%)
min: 15675     avg: 16588     median: 16451 (69%)     max: 17638 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
min: 11774     avg: 12830     median: 12432.5 (31%)     max: 14680 Points
6148 Points (15%)
min: 23545     avg: 25100     median: 25121 (63%)     max: 26633 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0)
0 Points (0%)
6989 Points (62%)
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0) Graphics
0 Points (0%)
8588 Points (52%)
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
0 Points (0%)
5098 Points (25%)
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
min:      avg: 0 (0%)     max: 0 Points
6087 Points (20%)
3DMark - 3DMark Wild Life Unlimited
min: 6440     avg: 7269     median: 7373 (4%)     max: 7890 Points
3212 Points (2%)
min: 12652     avg: 13199     median: 13098 (7%)     max: 13847 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
min: 1702     avg: 1852     median: 1885.5 (2%)     max: 1935 Points
786 Points (1%)
min: 3933     avg: 4182     median: 4235 (5%)     max: 4378 Points
GFXBench - GFXBench 5.0 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
12 fps (4%)
min: 30     avg: 32     median: 32 (12%)     max: 34 fps
GFXBench - GFXBench 5.0 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
min: 28     avg: 29.5     median: 29.5 (5%)     max: 31 fps
18 fps (3%)
min: 69     avg: 77.7     median: 75 (13%)     max: 89 fps
GFXBench - GFXBench 5.0 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
min: 60     avg: 68     median: 67.5 (5%)     max: 77 fps
50 fps (4%)
min: 153     avg: 161     median: 154 (11%)     max: 176 fps
GFXBench - GFXBench Car Chase Offscreen
min: 63     avg: 67.5     median: 67.5 (6%)     max: 72 fps
40 fps (4%)
min: 130     avg: 133.3     median: 131 (12%)     max: 139 fps
GFXBench 3.1 - GFXBench Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
min: 101     avg: 120.3     median: 125 (3%)     max: 130 fps
65 fps (1%)
min: 214     avg: 224.3     median: 215 (5%)     max: 244 fps
GFXBench 3.0 - GFXBench 3.0 Manhattan Offscreen
min: 135     avg: 182.3     median: 190 (8%)     max: 214 fps
90 fps (4%)
min: 269     avg: 289.3     median: 289 (12%)     max: 310 fps
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 + Samsung Xclipse 920
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 - GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
min: 218     avg: 285.5     median: 302 (2%)     max: 320 fps
GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 + Qualcomm Adreno 642
153 fps (1%)
GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 + Samsung Xclipse 940
min: 378     avg: 388.3     median: 384 (3%)     max: 403 fps
Antutu v9 - AnTuTu v9 GPU
min: 306511     avg: 328113     median: 319781 (32%)     max: 366379 Points
162946 Points (16%)
Antutu v10 - AnTuTu v10 GPU
402385 Points (32%)
min: 613580     avg: 637825     median: 617384 (49%)     max: 682510 Points
Basemark GPU 1.2 - Basemark GPU 1.2 Vulkan Official Medium Offscreen 1080
136.6 fps (3%)
48 fps (1%)
min: 239     avg: 245.7     median: 249 (6%)     max: 249 fps
Geekbench 6.4 - Geekbench 6.4 GPU OpenCL
8042 Points (2%)
min: 16906     avg: 16942     median: 16932 (4%)     max: 16987 Points
Geekbench 6.4 - Geekbench 6.4 GPU Vulkan
8695 Points (2%)
min: 16011     avg: 16059     median: 16078 (4%)     max: 16087 Points
Power Consumption - GFXBench Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen Power Consumption 150cd *
min: 8.3     avg: 9.8     median: 9.2 (4%)     max: 12.6 Watt
min: 10.2     avg: 11.5     median: 11 (4%)     max: 13.2 Watt

Average Benchmarks Samsung Xclipse 920 → 100% n=13

Average Benchmarks Qualcomm Adreno 642 → 51% n=13

Average Benchmarks Samsung Xclipse 940 → 189% n=13

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
red legend - Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Game Benchmarks

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don't have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

League of Legends: Wild Rift

League of Legends: Wild Rift

2020
high
100%
Xclipse 920:
60  fps
Call of Duty Mobile

Call of Duty Mobile

2020
low
100%
Xclipse 920:
60  fps
Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact

2020
low
100%
Xclipse 920:
59.5  fps
99%
Xclipse 940:
58 59 60 ~ 59 fps
med.
100%
Xclipse 920:
59.3  fps
ultra
100%
Xclipse 920:
58.2  fps
95%
Xclipse 940:
47 58 59 ~ 55 fps
Armajet

Armajet

2020
high
100%
Xclipse 920:
30 103 ~ 67 fps
45%
Adreno 642:
30  fps
PUBG Mobile

PUBG Mobile

2018
low
100%
Xclipse 920:
30 58.3 ~ 44 fps
136%
Adreno 642:
60  fps
198%
Xclipse 940:
81 90 90 ~ 87 fps
med.
100%
Xclipse 920:
39.5  fps
149%
Adreno 642:
59  fps
high
100%
Xclipse 920:
30 30 30 39.8 ~ 32 fps
188%
Adreno 642:
60  fps
184%
Xclipse 940:
57 60 60 ~ 59 fps
ultra
Adreno 642:
40  fps
Xclipse 940:
40 40 40 ~ 40 fps
Dead Trigger 2

Dead Trigger 2

2013
high
Xclipse 940:
105 119 119 ~ 114 fps
Asphalt 9: Legends

Asphalt 9: Legends

2013
low
Adreno 642:
60  fps
high
Adreno 642:
60  fps

Average Gaming Samsung Xclipse 920 → 100%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 100%

Average Gaming Qualcomm Adreno 642 → 130%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 158%

Average Gaming Samsung Xclipse 940 → 144%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 126%

Samsung Xclipse 920Qualcomm Adreno 642Samsung Xclipse 940
lowmed.highultraQHD4Klowmed.highultraQHD4Klowmed.highultraQHD4K
League of Legends: Wild Rift60
Call of Duty Mobile60
Genshin Impact59.559.358.25955
Armajet6730
PUBG Mobile4439.53260596040875940
Samsung Xclipse 920Qualcomm Adreno 642Samsung Xclipse 940
lowmed.highultraQHD4Klowmed.highultraQHD4Klowmed.highultraQHD4K
< 30 fps
< 60 fps
< 120 fps
≥ 120 fps

2
1

2


1
2

1







< 30 fps
< 60 fps
< 120 fps
≥ 120 fps


1

1


1
1

1







< 30 fps
< 60 fps
< 120 fps
≥ 120 fps

1
1




1


2







For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

v1.33
log 23. 03:06:49

#0 ran 0s before starting gpusingle class +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 11147 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 10693 +0s ... 0s

#3 checking url part for id 12422 +0s ... 0s

#4 redirected to Ajax server, took 1753232809s time from redirect:0 +0s ... 0s

#5 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 22 Jul 2025 05:17:28 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#6 composed specs +0.032s ... 0.033s

#7 did output specs +0s ... 0.033s

#8 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.033s

#9 getting avg benchmarks for device 11147 +0.015s ... 0.047s

#10 got single benchmarks 11147 +0.005s ... 0.052s

#11 getting avg benchmarks for device 10693 +0s ... 0.052s

#12 got single benchmarks 10693 +0.001s ... 0.053s

#13 getting avg benchmarks for device 12422 +0s ... 0.053s

#14 got single benchmarks 12422 +0.004s ... 0.058s

#15 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.058s

#16 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.004s ... 0.062s

#17 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.062s

#18 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.063s

#19 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.064s

#20 min, max, avg, median took s +0.012s ... 0.075s

#21 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.075s

#22 Got 39 rows for game benchmarks. +0.007s ... 0.082s

#23 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s ... 0.082s

#24 got data and put it in $dataArray +0s ... 0.082s

#25 benchmarks composed for output. +0.003s ... 0.085s

#26 calculated avg scores. +0s ... 0.085s

#27 return log +0s ... 0.085s

Please share our article, every link counts!
Mail Logo
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Benchmarks / Tech > Graphics Card Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2023-07- 1)