ATI Radeon HD 4670 vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI with Radeon HD 4670, including specs and performance data.
485M SLI outperforms HD 4670 by a whopping 816% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 549 | 1182 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 6.42 | 1.19 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A1 | RV730 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 10 September 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 768 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 193 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 2x2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 32 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| 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:
| 900p | 89
+889%
| 9−10
−889%
|
| Full HD | 103
+930%
| 10−12
−930%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.70 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| 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
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| 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
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+836%
|
14−16
−836%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| 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
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| 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 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| 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
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
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
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| 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 HD 4670 compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M SLI is 889% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M SLI is 930% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.34 | 0.91 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 10 September 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 59 Watt |
GTX 485M SLI has a 816% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4670, on the other hand, has 69% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 485M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 4670 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.
