Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
285M SLI outperforms R5 (Carrizo) by a whopping 124% 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 | 990 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | 3.74 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 4 June 2015 (10 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
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 | medium sized |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| 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
+150%
| 24−27
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+43.2%
|
35−40
−43.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+91.7%
|
35−40
−91.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+43.2%
|
35−40
−43.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+43.2%
|
35−40
−43.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 285M SLI and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:
- GTX 285M SLI is 150% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 285M SLI is 1400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 285M SLI surpassed R5 (Carrizo) in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.81 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 4 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 285M SLI has a 124.1% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 (Carrizo), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 285M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Carrizo) 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.
