GeForce 920M vs GTX 285M

Place in the ranking	940	907
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.53	3.94
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	G92	GK208B
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)	13 March 2015 (9 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	128	384
Core clock speed	600 MHz	954 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	30.53
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.7327 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	576	no data
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	32

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
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x8
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no data

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1020 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost	no data	2.0
Optimus	-	+
GameWorks	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 285M 1.65

GeForce 920M 1.87
+13.3%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 285M 636

GeForce 920M 720
+13.2%

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.

GTX 285M 6498
+16.3%

GeForce 920M 5587

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	21 +0%	21−24 +0%
Full HD	29 +93.3%	15 −93.3%
4K	7−8 −28.6%	9 +28.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −150%	15 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how GTX 285M and GeForce 920M compete in popular games:

A tie in 900p
GTX 285M is 93% faster in 1080p
GeForce 920M is 29% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 285M is 200% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 920M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 285M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GeForce 920M is ahead in 26 tests (49%)
there's a draw in 26 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.65	1.87
Recency	1 February 2010	13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	33 Watt

GeForce 920M has a 13.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 127.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 920M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.