GeForce RTX 3080 vs GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with GeForce RTX 3080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3080 outperforms 285M SLI by a whopping 1470% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 772 | 43 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 65 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.00 |
| Power efficiency | 1.97 | 14.50 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 8704 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 465.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 29.77 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 272 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 272 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 68 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 8.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 5 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 285 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 12-pin |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 10 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 760.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 8.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 60
−175%
| 165
+175%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−1657%
| 123
+1657%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−1600%
| 85
+1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.24 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.68 |
| 4K | no data | 8.22 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−3311%
|
307
+3311%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1887%
|
290−300
+1887%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−2556%
|
239
+2556%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−1047%
|
172
+1047%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1887%
|
290−300
+1887%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1625%
|
138
+1625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1327%
|
157
+1327%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1182%
|
280−290
+1182%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1206%
|
230−240
+1206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1420%
|
152
+1420%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−981%
|
170−180
+981%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−557%
|
300−350
+557%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−1533%
|
147
+1533%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−940%
|
156
+940%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1887%
|
290−300
+1887%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−303%
|
270−280
+303%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1575%
|
134
+1575%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−320%
|
147
+320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1264%
|
150
+1264%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1182%
|
280−290
+1182%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1206%
|
230−240
+1206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1300%
|
140
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−1236%
|
147
+1236%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−1729%
|
128
+1729%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−981%
|
170−180
+981%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−2425%
|
303
+2425%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−557%
|
300−350
+557%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−867%
|
145
+867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1538%
|
131
+1538%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−286%
|
135
+286%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1173%
|
140
+1173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1206%
|
230−240
+1206%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−981%
|
170−180
+981%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1142%
|
149
+1142%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−406%
|
268
+406%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1182%
|
280−290
+1182%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2471%
|
180−190
+2471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−1490%
|
450−500
+1490%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−5500%
|
112
+5500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4650%
|
95
+4650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−447%
|
170−180
+447%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−976%
|
400−450
+976%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4200%
|
86
+4200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1829%
|
135
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2100%
|
190−200
+2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2740%
|
140−150
+2740%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2057%
|
150−160
+2057%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1700%
|
50−55
+1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−794%
|
143
+794%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1771%
|
300−350
+1771%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4200%
|
43
+4200%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−975%
|
129
+975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4600%
|
94
+4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3625%
|
140−150
+3625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1875%
|
75−80
+1875%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
This is how GTX 285M SLI and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3080 is 175% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3080 is 1657% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3080 is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3080 is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3080 performs better in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.82 | 59.96 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 1 September 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 320 Watt |
GTX 285M SLI has 113% lower power consumption.
RTX 3080, on the other hand, has a 1470% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 588% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M SLI is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 3080 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
