ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 710 | 825 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.22 |
| Power efficiency | 18.08 | 1.66 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Broadwell GT3e | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 300 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.80 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 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 | no data |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
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 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.
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 | 40−45
+42.9%
| 28
−42.9%
|
| Full HD | 55−60
+37.5%
| 40
−37.5%
|
| 1200p | 27−30
+42.1%
| 19
−42.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+20.9%
|
40−45
−20.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+39.6%
|
45−50
−39.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+20.9%
|
40−45
−20.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+20.9%
|
40−45
−20.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+31.8%
|
21−24
−31.8%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+77.3%
|
21−24
−77.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 43% faster in 900p
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 38% faster in 1080p
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 42% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is ahead in 55 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.41 | 2.29 |
| Recency | 5 September 2014 | 25 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 110 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 633.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
