GeForce GTX 480 vs Radeon 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with GeForce GTX 480, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms GTX 480 by a moderate 17% 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 | 443 | 478 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.36 |
| Power efficiency | 57.99 | 2.97 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 26 March 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 42.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 1.345 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 60 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 960 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 768 KB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 177.4 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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 | 42
+20%
| 35−40
−20%
|
| 1440p | 18
+28.6%
| 14−16
−28.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 14.26 |
| 1440p | no data | 35.64 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+20.8%
|
50−55
−20.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+15.9%
|
40−45
−15.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+20.8%
|
50−55
−20.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+56.3%
|
30−35
−56.3%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+15.3%
|
55−60
−15.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+14%
|
40−45
−14%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33
−20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+16.7%
|
35−40
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+10.6%
|
90−95
−10.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+15.9%
|
40−45
−15.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+20.8%
|
50−55
−20.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+12.8%
|
140−150
−12.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+40.6%
|
30−35
−40.6%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+15.3%
|
55−60
−15.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+14%
|
40−45
−14%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+18.9%
|
35−40
−18.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+16.7%
|
35−40
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+10.6%
|
90−95
−10.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+15.9%
|
40−45
−15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+31.3%
|
30−35
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+14%
|
40−45
−14%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+16.7%
|
35−40
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+15.3%
|
55−60
−15.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+17.3%
|
75−80
−17.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+13.8%
|
100−110
−13.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+19.2%
|
50−55
−19.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and GTX 480 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 20% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 860M is 29% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 860M is 56% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 860M performs better in 60 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.81 | 9.22 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 17.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
