Radeon R9 M385 vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI and Radeon R9 M385, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 485M SLI outperforms R9 M385 by an impressive 70% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 483 | 621 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.30 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A1 | Strato |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 5 May 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 cores | 768 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 56.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.792 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 56 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| Mantle | - | + |
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
+78%
| 50−55
−78%
|
| Full HD | 97
+76.4%
| 55−60
−76.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+60%
|
45−50
−60%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+54%
|
85−90
−54%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+60%
|
45−50
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+73.7%
|
35−40
−73.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
This is how GTX 485M SLI and R9 M385 compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M SLI is 78% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M SLI is 76% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 220% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 485M SLI is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.72 | 5.12 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 5 May 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 485M SLI has a 70.3% higher aggregate performance score.
R9 M385, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 485M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
