RTX PRO 6000 vs GeForce GTX 285M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 285M with RTX PRO 6000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 285M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.40
+22.8%

285M outperforms RTX PRO 6000 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10551131
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.440.15
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameG92GB202
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 February 2010 (16 years ago)2025 (1 year ago)

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 cores12824064
Core clock speed600 MHz2017 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2407 MHz
Number of transistors754 million92,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt600 Watt
Texture fill rate38.401,810
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS115.8 TFLOPS
Gigaflops576no data
ROPs16176
TMUs64752
Tensor Coresno data752
Ray Tracing Coresno data188
L1 Cacheno data23.5 MB
L2 Cache64 KB128 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data304 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount1 GB96 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 1020 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s1.79 TB/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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort4x DisplayPort 2.1b
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA+10.1
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.

GTX 285M 1.40
+22.8%
RTX PRO 6000 1.14

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GTX 285M 584
+23.5%
Samples: 44
RTX PRO 6000 473
Samples: 1

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:

900p21
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Full HD30
+25%
24−27
−25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Palworld 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Palworld 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Valorant 30−35
+25.9%
27−30
−25.9%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Palworld 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 30−35
+25.9%
27−30
−25.9%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 30−35
+25.9%
27−30
−25.9%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Palworld 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Palworld 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Valorant 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GTX 285M and RTX PRO 6000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 285M is 31% faster in 900p
  • GTX 285M is 25% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 1.14
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 96 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 600 Watt

GTX 285M has a 23% higher aggregate performance score, and 700% lower power consumption.

RTX PRO 6000, on the other hand, has a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 285M is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX PRO 6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 285M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 100 votes

Rate RTX PRO 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 285M or RTX PRO 6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.