GeForce GT 445M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce GT 445M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 445M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 209% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1174 | 869 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.34 | 4.15 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | M88 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (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 | 320 | 144 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 14.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 0.3398 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
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 | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 60.0 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 outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 6−7
−217%
| 19
+217%
|
| Full HD | 10−12
−220%
| 32
+220%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
1440p
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3850 and GT 445M compete in popular games:
- GT 445M is 217% faster in 900p
- GT 445M is 220% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 445M is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 445M is ahead in 34 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 2.10 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 3 September 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
GT 445M has a 208.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 445M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3850 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.
