GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 with GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 11110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1183 | 12 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 20 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 67.57 |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | 24.15 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | M88 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
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 | 320 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 80 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 504.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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:
| Full HD | 1−2
−21600%
| 217
+21600%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−13300%
| 134
+13300%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 82 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.76 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.47 |
| 4K | no data | 7.30 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−10900%
|
220−230
+10900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9700%
|
196
+9700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−10900%
|
220−230
+10900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9100%
|
184
+9100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−7225%
|
290−300
+7225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1383%
|
400−450
+1383%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−10900%
|
220−230
+10900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1363%
|
270−280
+1363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7850%
|
159
+7850%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−10733%
|
1300−1350
+10733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−7225%
|
290−300
+7225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−18400%
|
185
+18400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−10200%
|
412
+10200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1383%
|
400−450
+1383%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7100%
|
144
+7100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−10733%
|
1300−1350
+10733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−7225%
|
290−300
+7225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4925%
|
201
+4925%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1383%
|
400−450
+1383%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−25700%
|
500−550
+25700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 92 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−12850%
|
250−260
+12850%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 70−75 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1007%
|
166
+1007%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−8200%
|
300−350
+8200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10200%
|
103
+10200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 203
+0%
|
203
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200
+0%
|
200
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190
+0%
|
190
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3850 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 21600% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 13300% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4070 SUPER is 25700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is ahead in 29 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.60 | 67.26 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 220 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3850 has 528.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 11110% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 3850 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER 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.
