GeForce GTX 480 vs Radeon E8950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon E8950 with GeForce GTX 480, including specs and performance data.

Radeon E8950
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 95 Watt
13.12
+34%

E8950 outperforms GTX 480 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking431500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.45
Power efficiency10.683.03
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameAmethystGF100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date29 September 2015 (10 years ago)26 March 2010 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$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 cores2048480
Core clock speed735 MHz700 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt250 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate128.042.06
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS1.345 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs12860
L1 Cache512 KB960 KB
L2 Cache512 KB768 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).

Bus supportno data16x PCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options-+

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 amount8 GB1536 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1848 MHz (3696 data rate)
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s177.4 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 outputsTwo Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.2
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra

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

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.12 9.79
Recency 29 September 2015 26 March 2010
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1536 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 250 Watt

Radeon E8950 has a 34% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 433% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 163% lower power consumption.

The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 480 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 14 votes

Rate Radeon E8950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 252 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 480 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon E8950 or GeForce GTX 480, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.