UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) vs Radeon R9 285

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
17.34
+1157%

R9 285 outperforms UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) by a whopping 1157% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3251019
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.80no data
Power efficiency6.279.49
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameTongaGen. 11
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)11 January 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores179224
Core clock speed918 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate102.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1375 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth176.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.1no data
Vulkan1.2.170-

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.

R9 285 17.34
+1157%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 1.38

  • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570
+1229%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 645

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:

Full HD100−110
+1150%
8
−1150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.49no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 285 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 1150% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.34 1.38
Recency 2 September 2014 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 4 Watt

R9 285 has a 1156.5% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 4650% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 285
Radeon R9 285
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

Other comparisons

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.


4.2
79 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4
122 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 285 or UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.