FirePro S9000 vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI with FirePro S9000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 485M SLI
2011
2x2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.41
FirePro S9000
2012, $2,499
6 GB GDDR5, 350 Watt
12.14
+44.4%

S9000 outperforms 485M SLI by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking557454
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.44
Power efficiency6.514.17
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameN11E-GTX-A1Tahiti
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 January 2011 (15 years ago)24 August 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores7681792
Core clock speed575 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistorsno data4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt350 Watt
Texture fill rateno data100.8
Floating-point processing powerno data3.226 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data112
L1 Cacheno data448 KB
L2 Cacheno data768 KB

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Form factorno datafull height / full length
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2x2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data264 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectorsno data1x DisplayPort
DisplayPort countno data1
Dual-link DVI support-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1112 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131

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:

900p89
−34.8%
120−130
+34.8%
Full HD103
−35.9%
140−150
+35.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data17.85

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−36.4%
60−65
+36.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Palworld 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−36.4%
60−65
+36.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Fortnite 50−55
−37.3%
70−75
+37.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Palworld 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%
Valorant 85−90
−41.2%
120−130
+41.2%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−36.4%
60−65
+36.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
−43.9%
190−200
+43.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Dota 2 60−65
−42.9%
90−95
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Fortnite 50−55
−37.3%
70−75
+37.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
−29%
40−45
+29%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Palworld 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Valorant 85−90
−41.2%
120−130
+41.2%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Dota 2 60−65
−42.9%
90−95
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Valorant 85−90
−41.2%
120−130
+41.2%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
−37.3%
70−75
+37.3%
Palworld 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
−38.5%
90−95
+38.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−33.3%
60−65
+33.3%
Valorant 85−90
−37.9%
120−130
+37.9%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%
Palworld 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Palworld 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Valorant 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
−29%
40−45
+29%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Palworld 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

This is how GTX 485M SLI and FirePro S9000 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro S9000 is 35% faster in 900p
  • FirePro S9000 is 36% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.41 12.14
Recency 6 January 2011 24 August 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 350 Watt

GTX 485M SLI has 250% lower power consumption.

FirePro S9000, on the other hand, has a 44% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro S9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M SLI is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S9000 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.


1.7 3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 7 votes

Rate FirePro S9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 485M SLI or FirePro S9000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.