UHD Graphics vs GeForce GTX 485M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M and UHD Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 485M outperforms UHD Graphics by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 591 | 614 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 6 |
| Power efficiency | 4.21 | 38.41 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Jasper Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (4 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 | 384 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 36.80 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8832 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | No outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 48
+20%
| 40−45
−20%
|
| Full HD | 66
+10%
| 60−65
−10%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+11.7%
|
60−65
−11.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+12.9%
|
85−90
−12.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+17.5%
|
40−45
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+11.7%
|
60−65
−11.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+17.5%
|
40−45
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+11.7%
|
60−65
−11.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+23.3%
|
30−33
−23.3%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+18.2%
|
55−60
−18.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how GTX 485M and UHD Graphics compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M is 20% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M is 10% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.99 | 5.47 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 10 Watt |
GTX 485M has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 485M and UHD Graphics.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
