GeForce GTX 285 vs GTX 480

Place in the ranking	428	693
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.59	0.27
Power efficiency	2.96	1.33
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GF100	GT200B
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	26 March 2010 (14 years ago)	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$359

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 480 has 489% better value for money than GTX 285.

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	480	240
Core clock speed	700 MHz	648 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	204 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	105 °C
Texture fill rate	42.06	51.84
Floating-point processing power	1.345 TFLOPS	0.7085 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	60	80

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 support	16x PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	2x 6-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	1 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	1848 MHz (3696 data rate)	1242 MHz
Memory bandwidth	177.4 GB/s	159.0 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	Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	+	+
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

no data

128bit

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.2	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
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 480 10.64
+171%

GTX 285 3.92

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 480 4106
+171%

GTX 285 1513

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+220%

5−6
−220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +175%	12−14 −175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +196%	24−27 −196%
Hitman 3	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +192%	12−14 −192%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +210%	21−24 −210%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +175%	12−14 −175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +196%	24−27 −196%
Hitman 3	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +192%	12−14 −192%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +210%	21−24 −210%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +196%	24−27 −196%
Hitman 3	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +192%	12−14 −192%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +210%	21−24 −210%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+200%

10−11

−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +172%	18−20 −172%
Hitman 3	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +179%	24−27 −179%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+200%

6−7
−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +194%	16−18 −194%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+233%

3−4
−233%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.64	3.92
Recency	26 March 2010	23 December 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	204 Watt

GTX 480 has a 171.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 285, on the other hand, has 22.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

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