ATI Radeon HD 5670 vs ATI Mobility HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 with Radeon HD 5670, including specs and performance data.
HD 5670 outperforms Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1237 | 950 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 1.50 | 2.30 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Redwood |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 14 January 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $119 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 64 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 15.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 0.62 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 40 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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 | 9−10
−189%
| 26
+189%
|
| Full HD | 10−12
−230%
| 33
+230%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.61 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−34.5%
|
35−40
+34.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−34.5%
|
35−40
+34.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−34.5%
|
35−40
+34.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3850 and ATI HD 5670 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is 189% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5670 is 230% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 5670 is 367% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 performs better in 28 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 1.91 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 14 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 64 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3850 has 83% lower power consumption.
ATI HD 5670, on the other hand, has a 181% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 5670 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 graphics card while Radeon HD 5670 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.
