Iris Graphics 540 vs GeForce GTX 485M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M and Iris Graphics 540, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 485M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
6.12
+87.7%

GTX 485M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking581746
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.2014.90
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGF104Skylake GT3e
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)1 September 2015 (9 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 cores384384
Core clock speed1150 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate36.8048.00
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS0.768 TFLOPS
ROPs326
TMUs6448

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth96.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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 485M 6.12
+87.7%
Iris Graphics 540 3.26

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 485M 2359
+87.5%
Iris Graphics 540 1258

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 485M 2709
+22.5%
Iris Graphics 540 2212

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 485M 13536
+53.3%
Iris Graphics 540 8828

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:

900p48
+100%
24−27
−100%
Full HD65
+210%
21
−210%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Hitman 3 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+60.9%
21−24
−60.9%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+28.2%
35−40
−28.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Hitman 3 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+60.9%
21−24
−60.9%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+17.6%
17
−17.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+28.2%
35−40
−28.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Hitman 3 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+60.9%
21−24
−60.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+28.2%
35−40
−28.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

This is how GTX 485M and Iris Graphics 540 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 485M is 100% faster in 900p
  • GTX 485M is 210% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 485M is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 485M surpassed Iris Graphics 540 in all 62 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.12 3.26
Recency 5 January 2011 1 September 2015
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 485M has a 87.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Graphics 540, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 485M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Graphics 540 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M
GeForce GTX 485M
Intel Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1 3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 98 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 540 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.