Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 vs GeForce GTX 485M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M SLI and Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega M GL / 870 outperforms GTX 485M SLI by a considerable 49% 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 | 526 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.37 | 14.64 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A1 | Vega Kaby Lake-G |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (7 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 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 931 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1011 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
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 |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12_1 |
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.
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.
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
−46.1%
| 130−140
+46.1%
|
| Full HD | 103
+140%
| 43
−140%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−55.6%
| 28
+55.6%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−55.6%
| 14
+55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−63.2%
|
62
+63.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−50%
|
42
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−65.4%
|
86
+65.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−51.6%
|
45−50
+51.6%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−30.6%
|
110−120
+30.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−36.8%
|
52
+36.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−35.3%
|
180−190
+35.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−32.8%
|
85−90
+32.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−39.3%
|
39
+39.3%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−7.7%
|
56
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−28.1%
|
41
+28.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24
+41.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−51.6%
|
45−50
+51.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−86.4%
|
41
+86.4%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−30.6%
|
110−120
+30.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−26.3%
|
48
+26.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−32.8%
|
85−90
+32.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−28.6%
|
36
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−51.6%
|
45−50
+51.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−30.6%
|
110−120
+30.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+36.8%
|
38
−36.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−56.3%
|
24−27
+56.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−47%
|
95−100
+47%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−37.8%
|
62
+37.8%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−39.8%
|
130−140
+39.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−70%
|
34
+70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−52.4%
|
30−35
+52.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−45%
|
29
+45%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−55.6%
|
70−75
+55.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−51.6%
|
45−50
+51.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
This is how GTX 485M SLI and RX Vega M GL / 870 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 46% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M SLI is 140% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 56% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 56% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 37% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GL / 870 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 485M SLI is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is ahead in 59 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.38 | 12.52 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 7 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 49.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 53.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M SLI in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
