HD Graphics 5000 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5850 and HD Graphics 5000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI Mobility HD 5850 outperforms HD Graphics 5000 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 914 | 982 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.39 | 3.49 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 7.5 (2013) |
| GPU code name | Broadway | Haswell GT3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 27 May 2013 (11 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 | 800 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 1,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 40.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8 TFLOPS | 0.64 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 40 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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 | 19
+35.7%
| 14−16
−35.7%
|
| Full HD | 25
+127%
| 11
−127%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+15.6%
|
30−35
−15.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5850 and HD Graphics 5000 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 36% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 127% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 100% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 5000 is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 is ahead in 38 tests (73%)
- HD Graphics 5000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.89 | 1.50 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 27 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
ATI Mobility HD 5850 has a 26% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 5000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.
The Mobility Radeon HD 5850 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 5000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
