GeForce3 vs Radeon R9 285

Place in the ranking	313	1505
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.73	no data
Power efficiency	6.36	no data
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Kelvin (2001−2003)
GPU code name	Tonga	NV20 A5
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)	27 February 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 285 and GeForce3 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	1792	no data
Core clock speed	918 MHz	200 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	57 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	102.8	1.600
Floating-point processing power	3.29 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	112	8

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	AGP 4x
Length	221 mm	165 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None

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	SDR
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	64 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	230 MHz
Memory bandwidth	176.0 GB/s	3.68 GB/s

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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2	1x VGA, 1x DB13W3
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	8.0
Shader Model	6.5	no data
OpenGL	4.6	1.3
OpenCL	2.1	N/A
Vulkan	1.2.170	N/A

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.

R9 285 17.32
+173100%

GeForce3 0.01

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.

R9 285 6680
+166900%

GeForce3 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.32	0.01
Recency	2 September 2014	27 February 2001
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	64 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	150 nm

R9 285 has a 173100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce3 in performance tests.

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