GeForce GT 730 vs GTX 285M

Place in the ranking	943	857
Place by popularity	not in top-100	34
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.19
Power efficiency	1.52	3.05
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	G92	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)	18 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	128	96
Core clock speed	600 MHz	700 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	49 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	11.2 GT/s
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	576	no data
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	64	16

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
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no 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 type	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1020 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
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.

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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 285M 1.65

GT 730 2.16
+30.9%

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 285M 636

GT 730 835
+31.3%

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	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Full HD	30 −16.7%	35−40 +16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

1.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4
+0%

This is how GTX 285M and GT 730 compete in popular games:

GT 730 is 29% faster in 900p
GT 730 is 17% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.65	2.16
Recency	1 February 2010	18 June 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	49 Watt

GT 730 has a 30.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 53.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 730 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 730 is a desktop one.

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