T1000 vs Radeon R9 M485X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M485X with T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms R9 M485X by a whopping 101% 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 | 524 | 336 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.80 | 28.17 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (10 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (5 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1395 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 78.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 2.5 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1024 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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 156 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
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 HD | 27−30
−104%
| 55
+104%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−114%
|
100−110
+114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−90.2%
|
75−80
+90.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−114%
|
100−110
+114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−107%
|
62
+107%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−76.8%
|
95−100
+76.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−90%
|
75−80
+90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−111%
|
55−60
+111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−115%
|
70−75
+115%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−57.8%
|
140−150
+57.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−90.2%
|
75−80
+90.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−114%
|
100−110
+114%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−61.7%
|
220−230
+61.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−94%
|
130−140
+94%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−90%
|
57
+90%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−76.8%
|
95−100
+76.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−90%
|
75−80
+90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−111%
|
55−60
+111%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−126%
|
77
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35
+94.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−115%
|
70−75
+115%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−167%
|
64
+167%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−57.8%
|
140−150
+57.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−90.2%
|
75−80
+90.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−94%
|
130−140
+94%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−76.7%
|
53
+76.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−90%
|
75−80
+90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−115%
|
70−75
+115%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35
+45.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−57.8%
|
140−150
+57.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−76.8%
|
95−100
+76.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−124%
|
35−40
+124%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−92.9%
|
130−140
+92.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−167%
|
30−35
+167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−252%
|
160−170
+252%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−72.5%
|
170−180
+72.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−141%
|
50−55
+141%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−109%
|
45−50
+109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−70%
|
30−35
+70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−121%
|
100−110
+121%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−155%
|
27−30
+155%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−91.2%
|
65−70
+91.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
This is how R9 M485X and T1000 compete in popular games:
- T1000 is 104% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 surpassed R9 M485X in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.09 | 18.29 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 6 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
R9 M485X has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T1000, on the other hand, has a 101% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M485X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M485X is a notebook graphics card while T1000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
