GeForce GTX 285M SLI vs GTX 970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 970 with GeForce GTX 285M SLI, including specs and performance data.
GTX 970 outperforms GTX 285M SLI by a whopping 507% 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 | 254 | 734 |
| Place by popularity | 72 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.78 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.83 | 1.92 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | N10E-GTX |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1664 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 148 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 122.5 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.92 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 56 | no data |
| TMUs | 104 | no data |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1020 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | no data |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| Full HD | 81
+35%
| 60
−35%
|
| 1440p | 54
+575%
| 8−9
−575%
|
| 4K | 39
+550%
| 6−7
−550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.06 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.09 | no data |
| 4K | 8.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+787%
|
14−16
−787%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+520%
|
14−16
−520%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+787%
|
14−16
−787%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+591%
|
10−12
−591%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+432%
|
21−24
−432%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+722%
|
9−10
−722%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+475%
|
16−18
−475%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+208%
|
50−55
−208%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+520%
|
14−16
−520%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+787%
|
14−16
−787%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+270%
|
65−70
−270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+246%
|
35−40
−246%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+591%
|
10−12
−591%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+273%
|
21−24
−273%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+722%
|
9−10
−722%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+475%
|
16−18
−475%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+575%
|
12−14
−575%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+208%
|
50−55
−208%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+220%
|
14−16
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+246%
|
35−40
−246%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+591%
|
10−12
−591%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+225%
|
16−18
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+208%
|
50−55
−208%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60
+173%
|
21−24
−173%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+476%
|
27−30
−476%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+465%
|
30−35
−465%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+403%
|
40−45
−403%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+567%
|
9−10
−567%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+621%
|
18−20
−621%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
This is how GTX 970 and GTX 285M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 970 is 35% faster in 1080p
- GTX 970 is 575% faster in 1440p
- GTX 970 is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 970 is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 970 surpassed GTX 285M SLI in all 59 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.99 | 3.79 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 148 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 970 has a 506.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 970 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 970 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 285M SLI is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
