GeForce 9300M GS vs GTX 485M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI and GeForce 9300M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
485M SLI outperforms 9300M GS by a whopping 2173% 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 | 560 | 1356 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.51 | 2.20 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A1 | G98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2008 (18 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 13 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0224 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 34 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 16 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | MXM-I |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 11.2 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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:
| 900p | 89
+2867%
| 3−4
−2867%
|
| Full HD | 103
+2475%
| 4−5
−2475%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how GTX 485M SLI and 9300M GS compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M SLI is 2867% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M SLI is 2475% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 6400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 485M SLI surpassed 9300M GS in all 30 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.41 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 4 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 13 Watt |
GTX 485M SLI has a 2173% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.
9300M GS, on the other hand, has 669% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 485M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300M GS 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.
