ATI Radeon E4690 vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI with Radeon E4690, including specs and performance data.


GTX 485M SLI
2011
2x2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.34
+760%

485M SLI outperforms E4690 by a whopping 760% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5491166
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.422.49
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameN11E-GTX-A1RV730
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 January 2011 (15 years ago)1 June 2009 (16 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 cores768320
Core clock speed575 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data514 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rateno data19.20
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data32

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 dataMXM-II
Widthno dataMXM Module

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2x2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1110.1
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.0

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
+790%
10−12
−790%
Full HD103
+930%
10−12
−930%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Valorant 85−90
+844%
9−10
−844%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+836%
14−16
−836%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Dota 2 60−65
+800%
7−8
−800%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Valorant 85−90
+844%
9−10
−844%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Dota 2 60−65
+800%
7−8
−800%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Valorant 85−90
+844%
9−10
−844%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+829%
7−8
−829%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+800%
5−6
−800%
Valorant 90−95
+840%
10−11
−840%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Valorant 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9 0−1

This is how GTX 485M SLI and ATI E4690 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 485M SLI is 790% faster in 900p
  • GTX 485M SLI is 930% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.34 0.97
Recency 6 January 2011 1 June 2009
Chip lithography 40 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 485M SLI has a 760% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.

ATI E4690, on the other hand, has 233% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 485M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E4690 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon E4690 is a desktop one.

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.


1.7 3 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon E4690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 485M SLI or Radeon E4690, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.