Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs Radeon R9 285

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014, $249
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.96
+68.7%

R9 285 outperforms Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking363493
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.67no data
Power efficiency6.45no data
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameTongaMeteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date2 September 2014 (11 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores17924
Core clock speed918 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1950 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Wattno data
Texture fill rate102.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1375 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth176.0 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2no data
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_2
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.1no data
Vulkan1.2.170-

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.

R9 285 15.96
+68.7%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 9.46

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.

R9 285 8570
+61.9%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295

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 HD40−45
+60%
25
−60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

This is how R9 285 and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 60% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.96 9.46
Recency 2 September 2014 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

R9 285 has a 68.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop graphics card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 285
Radeon R9 285
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 80 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 17 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 285 or Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.