ION 2 vs Radeon R9 M385
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M385 and ION 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M385 outperforms ION 2 by a whopping 1524% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 617 | 1308 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.14 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Strato | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 3 June 2008 (16 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 | 896 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 56.00 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.792 TFLOPS | 0.03424 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 56 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 1.2 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 85−90
+569%
|
12−14
−569%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M385 is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M385 is ahead in 31 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.36 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R9 M385 has a 1524.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M385 is our recommended choice as it beats the ION 2 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
