Radeon R9 M485X vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI and Radeon R9 M485X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M485X outperforms GTX 485M SLI by a minimal 4% 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 | 470 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.30 | 2.62 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A1 | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (8 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 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 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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
−1.1%
| 90−95
+1.1%
|
| Full HD | 97
−3.1%
| 100−110
+3.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−3.3%
|
30−35
+3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−2.7%
|
35−40
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−3.3%
|
30−35
+3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−2.6%
|
35−40
+2.6%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−3.7%
|
55−60
+3.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−2.7%
|
35−40
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−6.3%
|
30−35
+6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−4.2%
|
70−75
+4.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−3.7%
|
130−140
+3.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−3.3%
|
30−35
+3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−2.6%
|
35−40
+2.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−2.7%
|
35−40
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−4.2%
|
70−75
+4.2%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−2.3%
|
40−45
+2.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
−3%
|
65−70
+3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how GTX 485M SLI and R9 M485X compete in popular games:
- R9 M485X is 1% faster in 900p
- R9 M485X is 3% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M485X is 17% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M485X is ahead in 47 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.03 | 9.40 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 15 May 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 485M SLI has 150% lower power consumption.
R9 M485X, on the other hand, has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 485M SLI and Radeon R9 M485X.
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.
