GeForce GTX 950M vs GTX 485M SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI and GeForce GTX 950M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 485M SLI
2011
2x2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
9.19
+37%

GTX 485M SLI outperforms GTX 950M by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking477562
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.316.14
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameN11E-GTX-A1GM107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date6 January 2011 (13 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 cores768640
Core clock speed575 MHz914 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1124 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data44.96
Floating-point processing powerno data1.439 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data40

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
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 typeGDDR5DDR3 or GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2x2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1000 or 2500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data32 or 80 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
BatteryBoost-+
Anselno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-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 485M SLI 9.19
+37%
GTX 950M 6.71

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 485M SLI 5334
+22.1%
GTX 950M 4367

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 485M SLI 24830
+58.1%
GTX 950M 15710

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:

900p89
+48.3%
60−65
−48.3%
Full HD101
+248%
29
−248%
1440p27−30
+28.6%
21
−28.6%
4K21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.5%
23
+4.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+16.7%
24
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−14.3%
24
+14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+8.3%
24
−8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+38.6%
40−45
−38.6%
Hitman 3 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+27.5%
40−45
−27.5%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+52.6%
18−20
−52.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−84.6%
48
+84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−43.3%
43
+43.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+17.3%
50−55
−17.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+29.4%
16−18
−29.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+47.4%
18−20
−47.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+5%
20
−5%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+36.8%
19
−36.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+38.6%
40−45
−38.6%
Hitman 3 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+27.5%
40−45
−27.5%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+52.6%
18−20
−52.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+30.4%
21−24
−30.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−84%
46
+84%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+17.3%
50−55
−17.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+100%
11
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+40%
15
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+38.6%
40−45
−38.6%
Hitman 3 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+168%
19
−168%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+30.4%
21−24
−30.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+127%
11
−127%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+17.3%
50−55
−17.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−26.9%
33
+26.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+11.4%
35
−11.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+46.2%
13
−46.2%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+37.2%
40−45
−37.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−26.7%
19
+26.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Hitman 3 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+85%
20−22
−85%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−100%
18
+100%

This is how GTX 485M SLI and GTX 950M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 485M SLI is 48% faster in 900p
  • GTX 485M SLI is 248% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 485M SLI is 29% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 485M SLI is 31% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 400% faster.
  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 950M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 485M SLI is ahead in 63 tests (89%)
  • GTX 950M is ahead in 8 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.19 6.71
Recency 6 January 2011 13 March 2015
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 485M SLI has a 37% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 950M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 485M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 950M in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M SLI
GeForce GTX 485M SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
GeForce GTX 950M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2 2 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1116 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 950M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.