Radeon HD 6850M vs FirePro W4170M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4170M with Radeon HD 6850M, including specs and performance data.
W4170M outperforms HD 6850M by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 818 | 897 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.77 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Opal | Granville |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2015 (9 years ago) | 4 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 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 27.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 1.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40 |
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 | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 25.6 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 (1.2) | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | N/A |
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 | 24−27
+20%
| 20
−20%
|
| Full HD | 22
−18.2%
| 26
+18.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.3%
|
35−40
−10.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+25.6%
|
35−40
−25.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.3%
|
35−40
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.3%
|
35−40
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how W4170M and HD 6850M compete in popular games:
- W4170M is 20% faster in 900p
- HD 6850M is 18% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the W4170M is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- W4170M is ahead in 50 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.34 | 1.75 |
| Recency | 23 April 2015 | 4 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
W4170M has a 33.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro W4170M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6850M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4170M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 6850M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
