GeForce GTX 285M vs Radeon R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 with GeForce GTX 285M, including specs and performance data.
R7 370 outperforms 285M by a whopping 666% 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 | 472 | 1044 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.78 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.50 | 1.44 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
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 | 1024 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 38.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 576 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 64 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 152 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | Up to 1020 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 61 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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 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:
| 900p | 160−170
+662%
| 21
−662%
|
| Full HD | 46
+53.3%
| 30
−53.3%
|
| 1440p | 57
+714%
| 7−8
−714%
|
| 4K | 20
+900%
| 2−3
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24 | no data |
| 1440p | 2.61 | no data |
| 4K | 7.45 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+2550%
|
4−5
−2550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+397%
|
30−35
−397%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Valorant | 20
−70%
|
30−35
+70%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+800%
|
9−10
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+2260%
|
5−6
−2260%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+729%
|
7−8
−729%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how R7 370 and GTX 285M compete in popular games:
- R7 370 is 662% faster in 900p
- R7 370 is 53% faster in 1080p
- R7 370 is 714% faster in 1440p
- R7 370 is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 4300% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 285M is 70% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 370 performs better in 44 tests (98%)
- GTX 285M performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.72 | 1.40 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 1 February 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 75 Watt |
R7 370 has a 666% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 285M, on the other hand, has 47% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 285M 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.
