Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GTX 285M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GTX 285M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 905 | 878 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.28 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX1 | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Current price | $111 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 256 |
| CUDA cores | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38 billion/sec | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 384.0 gflops | no data |
| Gigaflops | 576 | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 285M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo) compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1020 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 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 | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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
+0%
| 21−24
+0%
|
| Full HD | 27
+0%
| 27−30
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
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%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 285M and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:
- A tie in 900p
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 21 test (40%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (60%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 1.83 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 4 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 12 Watt |
The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
