GeForce GTX 485M vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 485M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 485M outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 597 | 593 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.70 | 4.20 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 36.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.8832 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96.0 GB/s |
| 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 data | No outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 45−50
−6.7%
| 48
+6.7%
|
| Full HD | 21
−214%
| 66
+214%
|
| 1440p | 23
+9.5%
| 21−24
−9.5%
|
| 4K | 18
+0%
| 18−20
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Fortnite | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 97
+44.8%
|
65−70
−44.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−71.4%
|
95−100
+71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−11.9%
|
45−50
+11.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 73
+9%
|
65−70
−9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−17.5%
|
45−50
+17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Valorant | 19
−253%
|
65−70
+253%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
| Valorant | 49
−32.7%
|
65−70
+32.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 22
−31.8%
|
27−30
+31.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 485M compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M is 7% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M is 214% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 10% faster in 1440p
- A tie in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 45% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 485M is 253% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 7 tests (11%)
- GTX 485M is ahead in 26 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.99 | 6.06 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 5 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 9 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 485M, on the other hand, has a 1.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 485M.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
