GeForce RTX 2060 vs GTX 285

Place in the ranking	696	129
Place by popularity	not in top-100	20
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	40.90
Power efficiency	1.33	15.87
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT200B	TU106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	7 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2060 has 15048% better value for money than GTX 285.

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	240	1920
Core clock speed	648 MHz	1365 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1680 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	160 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	201.6
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	6.451 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	48
TMUs	80	120
Tensor Cores	no data	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	30

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 GB/s	336.0 GB/s
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	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	128bit	no data
VR Ready	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

GTX 285 3.92

RTX 2060 36.68
+836%

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.

GTX 285 1513

RTX 2060 14150
+835%

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	12−14 −883%	118 +883%
1440p	7−8 −929%	72 +929%
4K	5−6 −880%	49 +880%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	29.92	2.96
1440p	51.29	4.85
4K	71.80	7.12

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

60−65

+0%

60−65

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	92 +0%	92 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Battlefield 5	157 +0%	157 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	106 +0%	106 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	114 +0%	114 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	128 +0%	128 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	205 +0%	205 +0%
Hitman 3	98 +0%	98 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	248 +0%	248 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	109 +0%	109 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	191 +0%	191 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	254 +0%	254 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	131 +0%	131 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	64 +0%	64 +0%
Battlefield 5	140 +0%	140 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	96 +0%	96 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	91 +0%	91 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	95 +0%	95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	194 +0%	194 +0%
Hitman 3	96 +0%	96 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	247 +0%	247 +0%
Metro Exodus	140 +0%	140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	103 +0%	103 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	244 +0%	244 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	56 +0%	56 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 +0%	55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	71 +0%	71 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	70 +0%	70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	105 +0%	105 +0%
Hitman 3	81 +0%	81 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120 +0%	120 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +0%	73 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45 +0%	45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +0%	42 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	51 +0%	51 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Hitman 3	54 +0%	54 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	89 +0%	89 +0%
Metro Exodus	76 +0%	76 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	236 +0%	236 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	37 +0%	37 +0%
Hitman 3	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	104 +0%	104 +0%
Metro Exodus	52 +0%	52 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	51 +0%	51 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	28 +0%	28 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24 +0%	24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	28 +0%	28 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	25 +0%	25 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	17 +0%	17 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how GTX 285 and RTX 2060 compete in popular games:

RTX 2060 is 883% faster in 1080p
RTX 2060 is 929% faster in 1440p
RTX 2060 is 880% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	36.68
Recency	23 December 2008	7 January 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	160 Watt

RTX 2060 has a 835.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 27.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2060 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

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