Radeon Pro W5700X vs GeForce GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with Radeon Pro W5700X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700X outperforms 285M SLI by a whopping 852% 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 | 761 | 151 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.80 |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | 13.63 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 205 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 293.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 9.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 144 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 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 | 305 mm |
| Width | no data | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 448.0 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, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
−817%
| 550−600
+817%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.82 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−809%
|
200−210
+809%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−844%
|
170−180
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−838%
|
150−160
+838%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−843%
|
500−550
+843%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−842%
|
650−700
+842%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−757%
|
300−310
+757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−809%
|
200−210
+809%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−844%
|
170−180
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−817%
|
110−120
+817%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−838%
|
150−160
+838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−817%
|
110−120
+817%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−843%
|
500−550
+843%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−757%
|
300−310
+757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−844%
|
170−180
+844%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−838%
|
150−160
+838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−817%
|
110−120
+817%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−843%
|
500−550
+843%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−809%
|
200−210
+809%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−831%
|
270−280
+831%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−838%
|
300−310
+838%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−775%
|
350−400
+775%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−847%
|
180−190
+847%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−817%
|
110−120
+817%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
This is how GTX 285M SLI and Pro W5700X compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700X is 817% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.81 | 36.29 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 11 December 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 205 Watt |
GTX 285M SLI has 37% lower power consumption.
Pro W5700X, on the other hand, has a 852% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 686% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5700X 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 Radeon Pro W5700X 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.
