ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs GeForce GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 and Radeon HD 4850, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a whopping 982% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 193 | 807 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.88 | 0.21 |
| Power efficiency | 12.16 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | RV770 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 has 5081% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.
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 | 2048 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.6 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.981 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 246 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 63.55 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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. 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 300−350
+934%
| 29
−934%
|
| Full HD | 91
+128%
| 40
−128%
|
| 1200p | 200−210
+953%
| 19
−953%
|
| 1440p | 50
+1150%
| 4−5
−1150%
|
| 4K | 39
+1200%
| 3−4
−1200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.03 | 4.98 |
| 1440p | 10.98 | 49.75 |
| 4K | 14.08 | 66.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 69
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+2050%
|
4−5
−2050%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 77
+1000%
|
7−8
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 253
+1846%
|
12−14
−1846%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+514%
|
21−24
−514%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+4800%
|
2−3
−4800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130
+1082%
|
10−12
−1082%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+192%
|
35−40
−192%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 83
+822%
|
9−10
−822%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+1280%
|
5−6
−1280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 64
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230
+1669%
|
12−14
−1669%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+514%
|
21−24
−514%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+4800%
|
2−3
−4800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+809%
|
10−12
−809%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+915%
|
12−14
−915%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+192%
|
35−40
−192%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+354%
|
12−14
−354%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+514%
|
21−24
−514%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+809%
|
10−12
−809%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+254%
|
12−14
−254%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+192%
|
35−40
−192%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 44
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+1125%
|
12−14
−1125%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+757%
|
7−8
−757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 150−160
+881%
|
16−18
−881%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 140−150
+1108%
|
12−14
−1108%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
This is how GTX 980 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 934% faster in 900p
- GTX 980 is 128% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 is 953% faster in 1200p
- GTX 980 is 1150% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980 is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 surpassed ATI HD 4850 in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.78 | 2.66 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 25 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 110 Watt |
GTX 980 has a 982% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
