OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400VRAM:1 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 27 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
4.7/10

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

▼Worse than 98%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

3.3

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

4.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 96%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (27)
18 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-480
nvidia-geforce-gtx-480
Where to buy
    N/A~ £400
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480

Based on 17 · 9

Reviewers praise its strong gaming performance, but most agree it runs hot, loud and power hungry.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480

Based on 194 owners sharing their experience in online comments

49%positive25%mixed26%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and long life, while extreme heat and power draw are the biggest drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the card runs very hot under load, often near 90–100°C, and can noticeably heat the room.66
  • Owners say it draws a lot of power, so electricity bills rise and a bigger power supply may be needed.17
  • Several owners say the card died after a few years of heat stress, sometimes with chip failure or burning smell.14
  • Owners say its 1.5 GB of memory becomes a bottleneck in newer games, forcing reduced textures or stuttering.7
  • Owners say it struggles with newer or demanding games, often needing low settings to hold playable frame rates.5
  • Owners say later driver updates reduced its performance and support for it faded over time.5
  • Owners report screen artifacts and freezing that appeared after a few years of use.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

3.3

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

4.7

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

5.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
813 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 813 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 99% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,075 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,075 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1925 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1925 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 95% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.34 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.34 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
1 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 1 GB of VRAM, which is less than 98.2% of graphics cards and equal to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
384 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 384 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
177.4 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 177.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89.4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
3,696 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 3,696 MHz, which is slower than that of 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2
This graphics card supports PCIe 2, which is older than on 98.4% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
N/A
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
2560x1600
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 2560x1600, which is lower than that of 97.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.1a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.1a, which is older than on 99.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.64 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.64 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
250 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 250 W under peak load, which is higher than 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
250 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 112x 40 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111.15 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.15 mm tall, which is shorter than 81.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.4% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,360 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,360 g, which is heavier than 68% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 72% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (701 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    701 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    18 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 25 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (15 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    15 vs 40
  • 63.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (700 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    700 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    18 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 28.3% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.78 vs 7.4).
    5.78 vs 7.41
  • 72% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (701 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    701 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 25 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (15 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    15 vs 40
  • 63.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (700 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    700 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 124 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (60 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    60 vs 184
  • 88.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (42.1 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    42.06 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 87% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (21 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    21.03 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 94.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.34 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 13 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2010 vs 2023).
    March 2010
    2010 vs 2023
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 82% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,075 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,075 points vs 22,638 points
  • 94.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (813 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    813 points vs 14,779 points
  • 84.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1925 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,925 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 95.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.3 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.34 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 64.6% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.17 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,872 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (480 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    480 vs 4,352
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 80.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (3,696 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    3,696 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 60.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (177.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    177.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 47.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (924 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    924 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2 vs 4).
    2 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.1 vs 3).
    1.1 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • 79.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (529 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    529 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 86.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.3a vs 2.1a).
    1.3a vs 2.1a
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 2 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (2 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    2 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.1a vs 1.4a).
    1.1a vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 2.3).
    1.2 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (2560x1600 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    2560x1600 vs 7680x4320
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °C vs 95 °C
  • 27 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (94 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    94 °C vs 67 °C
  • 9.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (45 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    45 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 37 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (37 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    37 dB vs 0 dB
  • 3.92x higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (47 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    47 W vs 12 W
  • 10 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (47 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    47 °C vs 37 °C
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Jaindike Tech Reviews
≈ estimated
25/01/2025
Hands-on review · 14-year-old card in modern games
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is still playable in simple games, but too weak for most modern titles.
4.0
BenchyDoesStuff
≈ estimated
17/06/2022
Long-term retest · stock and overclocked benchmarks in 2022
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is loud, hot and power hungry, struggles with modern games, and is not worth buying in 2022.
4.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
13/06/2021
Gaming test · 14 older titles at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 can play older games, but it is too loud, too hot and power hungry; not recommended, and overpriced.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
27/05/2019
Hands-on test · game performance and temperatures
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is fine for less demanding games and older titles, though modern triple-A games are hard to run.
5.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
25/02/2018
Retro test · 2018 game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 still runs at low settings, but its age and 1.5 GB of memory rule it out as a buy today.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2010
Launch review · Fermi architecture
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 is built for DirectX 11 tessellation, but it launched with one shader block disabled and very limited stock.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
27/03/2010
Launch review · Fermi flagship
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single-GPU card and strong at DirectX 11 tessellation, but it runs very hot, loud and power-hungry and trails the HD 5970.
7.0
pcgamer.com
≈ estimated
10/06/2010
Launch review · Single-GPU speed
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single-GPU card, leading its closest rival by 20%, but it is hard to justify on a single monitor.
6.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
04/05/2010
Benchmark review · Single-chip speed
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single-chip card and supports PhysX, but it runs very hot and loud and is hard to recommend for most single-screen gamers.
8.0
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2010
Lab test · Lane count scaling
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 was tested in x16, x8 and x4 PCI-Express slots, but it refused to boot in an x1 slot.
8.0
clubic.com
≈ estimated
26/03/2010
Benchmark tests · Flagship card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 beats the Radeon HD 5870 in many games at 1920x1200, but it draws up to 110 watts more under load.
6.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
27/03/2010
Lab test · SLI and power tests
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 holds its own at 2560x1600 with antialiasing, but it is among the least power-efficient cards tested.
4.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
25/05/2011
Lab test · Heat and noise
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 1.5GB is strong in games, but its high power draw, heat and fan noise make it a poor match for quiet PCs.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
27/03/2010
Full review · New GPU architecture
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 uses the large Fermi GF100 chip with 480 CUDA cores, built for tessellation-heavy games and raw rasterization performance.
6.0
xataka.com
≈ estimated
20/04/2010
Lab test · Single-chip flagship
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single-chip card, but it runs hot and loud, so the Radeon HD 5870 is the better pick for most users.
8.0
madboxpc.com
≈ estimated
21/04/2010
Hands-on test · Teardown and games
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 beats the Radeon HD 5870 in many games at high resolutions, but it runs very hot, and the dual-chip Radeon HD 5970 is faster.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
19/05/2010
Lab test · Dual-card SLI setup
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 in SLI gives strong gains over a single card, but two of them need a power supply of at least 850 watts.
7.0
canal-ar.com.ar
≈ estimated
27/05/2010
Lab test · High-end card pair
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 480 leads most single-chip tests and handles high resolutions well, but it draws 250 watts and gets very hot.
8.0
lucascalvi.it
≈ estimated
31/03/2010
Benchmark test · Three-card SLI
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 in three-way SLI scales well, but it needs liquid cooling and a very large power supply, so it only suits 2560x1600 gaming with 8x anti-aliasing.
9.0
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
27/03/2010
Hands-on review · Cooling and ports
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 draws up to 250W, so Nvidia advises at least a 600W power supply and a case with a large side fan.
6.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
27/03/2010
Benchmark review · Power and noise
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single GPU in this test, but it runs hot, loud and power-hungry, and the Radeon HD 5970 gives more speed for the money.
7.0
id.nl
✓ explicit
29/04/2010
Lab test · Flagship graphics card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 is the fastest single-chip card, about 15 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 5870, but its high power draw is its main drawback.
7.0
hardware.info
≈ estimated
25/04/2010
Lab test · Multi-card scaling
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 480 in four-way SLI adds only about 3 percent over three cards, so a fourth card is not worth it for gamers.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480

  • Top-tier single-GPU performance for its era, outperforming the Radeon HD 5870 in many DX11 titles
  • Support for then-new features like DirectX 11, PhysX, 3D Vision, and CUDA
  • Impressive GPGPU and Folding@home performance compared to previous generations
  • Strong tessellation capabilities which were highly beneficial for early DX11 games
  • Surprisingly long-term compatibility, with drivers supporting up to DirectX 12 in later years

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480

  • Extremely high power consumption, often requiring over 250W for the card alone
  • Excessive heat output, with load temperatures notoriously reaching 90°C–97°C
  • Very loud stock cooling solution, often described as 'deafening' under full load
  • Relatively high launch price compared to competitive offerings like the HD 5800 series
  • Launched with fewer cores (480) than the architecture's full 512-core potential due to manufacturing yields
  • Poor power efficiency at idle compared to contemporary AMD alternatives

Verdict

Launched in 2010 as the flagship of the Fermi architecture, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 features 480 CUDA cores, a 701 MHz core clock, and 1.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. It was the first consumer GPU to support DirectX 11 and interactive ray tracing, offering significant performance gains in demanding titles like Metro 2033. Its main strengths include leading-edge gaming performance for its era and advanced geometry processing via the PolyMorph Engine. However, the card is notorious for its massive 250W TDP, extreme operating temperatures that frequently exceed 90°C, and an exceptionally loud stock cooling solution.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found