GeForce GTX 485M SLI vs Quadro P1000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P1000 with GeForce GTX 485M SLI, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P1000
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
11.55
+25%

Quadro P1000 outperforms GTX 485M SLI by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking411468
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.58no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP107N11E-GTX-A1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 February 2017 (7 years ago)6 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$375 no data

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 cores640768
Core clock speed1493 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speed1519 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,300 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate59.20no data
Floating-point processing power1.894 gflopsno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs40no 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2x2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortno data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2-
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P1000 11.55
+25%
GTX 485M SLI 9.24

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.

Quadro P1000 24240
GTX 485M SLI 24830
+2.4%

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.

Quadro P1000 6001
+12.5%
GTX 485M SLI 5334

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:

900p110−120
+23.6%
89
−23.6%
Full HD44
−136%
104
+136%
4K11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+32.1%
27−30
−32.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+77%
60−65
−77%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+21.6%
50−55
−21.6%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+76.7%
30−33
−76.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+11.5%
60−65
−11.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+32.1%
27−30
−32.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%
Forza Horizon 4 100
+63.9%
60−65
−63.9%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+21.6%
50−55
−21.6%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+16%
24−27
−16%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+11.5%
60−65
−11.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+24.6%
60−65
−24.6%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+21.6%
50−55
−21.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
−56.3%
24−27
+56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+11.5%
60−65
−11.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+41%
35−40
−41%
Hitman 3 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+26.3%
18−20
−26.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+22%
55−60
−22%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+43.2%
35−40
−43.2%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

This is how Quadro P1000 and GTX 485M SLI compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P1000 is 24% faster in 900p
  • GTX 485M SLI is 136% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P1000 is 38% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P1000 is 80% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 56% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P1000 is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
  • GTX 485M SLI is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.55 9.24
Recency 1 February 2017 6 January 2011
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro P1000 has a 25% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 485M SLI is a notebook one.


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 Quadro P1000
Quadro P1000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M SLI
GeForce GTX 485M SLI

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.


3.5 511 votes

Rate Quadro P1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 2 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M SLI 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.