GeForce GTX 480 vs GTX 980

Place in the ranking	198	431
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	10.87	1.64
Power efficiency	12.08	2.95
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM204	GF100
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	19 September 2014 (10 years ago)	26 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 has 563% better value for money than GTX 480.

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	2048	480
Core clock speed	1064 MHz	700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1216 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	250 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	155.6	42.06
Floating-point processing power	4.981 TFLOPS	1.345 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	128	60

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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	16x PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	1848 MHz (3696 data rate)
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	177.4 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI
Multi monitor support	4 displays	+
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
G-SYNC support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	Internal

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	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 980 28.89
+170%

GTX 480 10.70

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.

GTX 980 11108
+170%

GTX 480 4113

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.

GTX 980 17605
+251%

GTX 480 5014

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 980 12938
+254%

GTX 480 3650

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 980 34883
+165%

GTX 480 13144

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 980 96
+77.8%

GTX 480 54

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	92 +207%	30−35 −207%
1440p	50 +178%	18−20 −178%
4K	40 +186%	14−16 −186%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.97 +179%	16.63 −179%
1440p	10.98 +152%	27.72 −152%
4K	13.73 +160%	35.64 −160%

GTX 980 has 179% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 980 has 152% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 980 has 160% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +180%	20−22 −180%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Elden Ring	95−100 +213%	30−35 −213%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75 +114%	35−40 −114%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +180%	20−22 −180%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +202%	40−45 −202%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +155%	27−30 −155%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +118%	27−30 −118%
Valorant	110−120 +180%	40−45 −180%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	77 +120%	35−40 −120%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +180%	20−22 −180%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Dota 2	48 +26.3%	35−40 −26.3%
Elden Ring	95−100 +213%	30−35 −213%
Far Cry 5	80−85 +93%	40−45 −93%
Fortnite	105 +69.4%	60−65 −69.4%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +202%	40−45 −202%
Grand Theft Auto V	72 +89.5%	35−40 −89.5%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +155%	27−30 −155%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	194 +137%	80−85 −137%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +118%	27−30 −118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	67 +109%	30−35 −109%
Valorant	110−120 +180%	40−45 −180%
World of Tanks	270−280 +78.3%	150−160 −78.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	67 +91.4%	35−40 −91.4%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +180%	20−22 −180%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Dota 2	95−100 +155%	35−40 −155%
Far Cry 5	80−85 +93%	40−45 −93%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +202%	40−45 −202%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	69 −18.8%	80−85 +18.8%
Valorant	110−120 +180%	40−45 −180%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%
Elden Ring	50−55 +253%	14−16 −253%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +250%	50−55 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
World of Tanks	180−190 +144%	75−80 −144%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +124%	21−24 −124%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +136%	10−12 −136%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +267%	24−27 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +229%	24−27 −229%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +210%	21−24 −210%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +238%	12−14 −238%
Valorant	80−85 +212%	24−27 −212%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Dota 2	59 +181%	21−24 −181%
Elden Ring	24−27 +243%	7−8 −243%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 +181%	21−24 −181%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70 +126%	30−35 −126%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	59 +181%	21−24 −181%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	22 +144%	9−10 −144%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Dota 2	50−55 +148%	21−24 −148%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Fortnite	30 +173%	10−12 −173%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%
Valorant	40−45 +264%	10−12 −264%

This is how GTX 980 and GTX 480 compete in popular games:

GTX 980 is 207% faster in 1080p
GTX 980 is 178% faster in 1440p
GTX 980 is 186% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 is 440% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480 is 19% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 980 is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
GTX 480 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.89	10.70
Recency	19 September 2014	26 March 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	250 Watt

GTX 980 has a 170% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 51.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.