GeForce GTX 285M SLI vs GTX 480M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480M SLI and GeForce GTX 285M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 480M SLI outperforms GTX 285M SLI by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 585 | 699 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.45 | 1.90 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A3 | N10E-GTX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 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 | 704 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6000 Million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 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 | large |
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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1020 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 10 |
| 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.
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3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution.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.
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 | 61
+74.3%
| 35−40
−74.3%
|
| Full HD | 69
+15%
| 60
−15%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+30.2%
|
50−55
−30.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+44.3%
|
70−75
−44.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+30.2%
|
50−55
−30.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+30.2%
|
50−55
−30.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+62.1%
|
27−30
−62.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+27.6%
|
27−30
−27.6%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+68.3%
|
40−45
−68.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GTX 480M SLI and GTX 285M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 480M SLI is 74% faster in 900p
- GTX 480M SLI is 15% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 480M SLI is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 480M SLI surpassed GTX 285M SLI in all 61 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.41 | 4.10 |
| Recency | 25 May 2010 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 480M SLI has a 56.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M SLI 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.
