ION vs GeForce GTX 480M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 480M SLI and ION, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.


GTX 480M SLI
2010
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
5.98
+2200%

480M SLI outperforms ION by a whopping 2200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking6441424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.601.00
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameN11E-GTX-A3C79
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date25 May 2010 (15 years ago)18 June 2008 (17 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 cores70416
Core clock speed425 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors6000 Million314 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.600
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0352 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L2 Cacheno data32 KB

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCI

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1200 MHzSystem Shared
Shared memory-+

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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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:

900p61
+2950%
2−3
−2950%
Full HD69
+2200%
3−4
−2200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 10−11 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Fortnite 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Valorant 65−70
+2200%
3−4
−2200%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−105
+2400%
4−5
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Fortnite 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Valorant 65−70
+2200%
3−4
−2200%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Valorant 65−70
+2200%
3−4
−2200%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Valorant 65−70
+3250%
2−3
−3250%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 12−14 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Valorant 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7 0−1

This is how GTX 480M SLI and ION compete in popular games:

  • GTX 480M SLI is 2950% faster in 900p
  • GTX 480M SLI is 2200% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.98 0.26
Recency 25 May 2010 18 June 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 20 Watt

GTX 480M SLI has a 2200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.

ION, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 480M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the ION 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate GeForce GTX 480M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 23 votes

Rate ION on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 480M SLI or ION, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.