UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs GeForce GTX 485M

Place in the ranking	584	657
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.23	11.24
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	GF104	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 January 2011 (14 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 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 cores	384	48
Core clock speed	1150 MHz	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1450 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	36.80	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.8832 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	64	no data

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)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	96.0 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	No outputs	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12_1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
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 6.14
+34.4%

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 4.57

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

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 3510
+29.6%

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
+27.1%

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 10650

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	48 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Full HD	63 +271%	17 −271%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +9.1%	11 −9.1%
Elden Ring	16−18 +23.1%	13 −23.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +19%	21 −19%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Valorant	18−20 +5.9%	17 −5.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Dota 2	21−24 +40%	15 −40%
Elden Ring	16−18 +60%	10 −60%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +27.3%	22 −27.3%
Fortnite	35−40 +33.3%	27−30 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +47.1%	17 −47.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +110%	10 −110%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +30.8%	35−40 −30.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Valorant	18−20 +50%	12 −50%
World of Tanks	95−100 +288%	25 −288%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +46.2%	12−14 −46.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Dota 2	21−24 −14.3%	24 +14.3%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +100%	14 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +56.3%	16 −56.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +30.8%	35−40 −30.8%
Valorant	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Elden Ring	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +19.4%	30−35 −19.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
World of Tanks	40−45 +33.3%	30−35 −33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Valorant	16−18 +23.1%	12−14 −23.1%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Fortnite	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Valorant	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

This is how GTX 485M and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:

GTX 485M is 37% faster in 900p
GTX 485M is 271% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 485M is 288% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 14% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 485M is ahead in 56 tests (93%)
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.14	4.57
Recency	5 January 2011	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	40 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	28 Watt

GTX 485M has a 34.4% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 485M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs in performance tests.

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