GeForce RTX 3090 Ti vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4850 with GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3090 Ti outperforms ATI Mobility HD 4850 by a whopping 4570% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 958 | 13 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.31 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.73 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | M98 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
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 | 800 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1560 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1860 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 450 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 625.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8 TFLOPS | 40 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 112 |
| TMUs | 40 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | 336 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-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 | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 850 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 1,008 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 | 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| 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 | 41
−412%
| 210
+412%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−4700%
| 144
+4700%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−5000%
| 102
+5000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.52 |
| 1440p | no data | 13.88 |
| 4K | no data | 19.60 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−5325%
|
210−220
+5325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−5375%
|
219
+5375%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−5325%
|
210−220
+5325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−6033%
|
180−190
+6033%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−4925%
|
201
+4925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 180−190 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−5940%
|
300−350
+5940%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3500%
|
280−290
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−19900%
|
200
+19900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1670%
|
170−180
+1670%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1064%
|
400−450
+1064%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−5325%
|
210−220
+5325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−6033%
|
180−190
+6033%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−742%
|
270−280
+742%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−4225%
|
173
+4225%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−1042%
|
217
+1042%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 180−190 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−5940%
|
300−350
+5940%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3500%
|
280−290
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−18700%
|
188
+18700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−8400%
|
170
+8400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−8800%
|
178
+8800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1670%
|
170−180
+1670%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−6467%
|
394
+6467%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1064%
|
400−450
+1064%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−6033%
|
180−190
+6033%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3700%
|
152
+3700%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−926%
|
195
+926%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 180−190 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3500%
|
280−290
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1670%
|
170−180
+1670%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3117%
|
193
+3117%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1064%
|
400−450
+1064%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−5940%
|
300−350
+5940%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−4050%
|
80−85
+4050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−5060%
|
500−550
+5060%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−5289%
|
450−500
+5289%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10300%
|
104
+10300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8350%
|
160−170
+8350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6225%
|
250−260
+6225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−5833%
|
170−180
+5833%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4933%
|
150−160
+4933%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6800%
|
65−70
+6800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1107%
|
181
+1107%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−4050%
|
300−350
+4050%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 53 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−9100%
|
184
+9100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5800%
|
110−120
+5800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−3100%
|
95−100
+3100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2533%
|
75−80
+2533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 151
+0%
|
151
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 4850 and RTX 3090 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 3090 Ti is 412% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3090 Ti is 4700% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3090 Ti is 5000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 3090 Ti is 19900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3090 Ti is ahead in 51 test (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 77.05 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 27 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3090 Ti has a 4569.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 4850 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 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.
