GeForce GTX 285M vs Radeon R9 M295X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X and GeForce GTX 285M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M295X outperforms 285M by a whopping 782% 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 | 437 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.78 | 1.43 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (15 years ago) |
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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 38.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 576 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 512 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 | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | Not Listed | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 1020 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 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 | No outputs | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | Not Listed | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 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 | 180−190
+757%
| 21
−757%
|
| Full HD | 48
+60%
| 30
−60%
|
| 4K | 26
+1200%
| 2−3
−1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+471%
|
30−35
−471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+944%
|
9−10
−944%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+607%
|
14−16
−607%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2117%
|
6−7
−2117%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+871%
|
7−8
−871%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
This is how R9 M295X and GTX 285M compete in popular games:
- R9 M295X is 757% faster in 900p
- R9 M295X is 60% faster in 1080p
- R9 M295X is 1200% 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 R9 M295X is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 M295X surpassed GTX 285M in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.26 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 23 November 2014 | 1 February 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
R9 M295X has a 782% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 285M, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
