GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a whopping 601% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 821 | 304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 28.71 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1185 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 94.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 6.05 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 112.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
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 |
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 29
−590%
| 200−210
+590%
|
| Full HD | 39
−10.3%
| 43
+10.3%
|
| 1200p | 19
−584%
| 130−140
+584%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−750%
| 34
+750%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−733%
| 25
+733%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10 | no data |
| 1440p | 49.75 | no data |
| 4K | 66.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−200%
|
36
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−600%
|
49
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−485%
|
76
+485%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2350%
|
49
+2350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−340%
|
40−45
+340%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4250%
|
87
+4250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1114%
|
85
+1114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−338%
|
70
+338%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−385%
|
63
+385%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−886%
|
69
+886%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−412%
|
120−130
+412%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−340%
|
40−45
+340%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−480%
|
55−60
+480%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2050%
|
43
+2050%
|
| World of Tanks | 45−50
−365%
|
220−230
+365%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110
+1471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−294%
|
60−65
+294%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−331%
|
56
+331%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−412%
|
120−130
+412%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3700%
|
75−80
+3700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−833%
|
160−170
+833%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−611%
|
120−130
+611%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1800%
|
35−40
+1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−333%
|
24−27
+333%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−100%
|
30−35
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−700%
|
55−60
+700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−113%
|
34
+113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 590% faster in 900p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 10% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 584% faster in 1200p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 750% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 733% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 2050 Mobile is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.58 | 18.08 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 17 December 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
RTX 2050 Mobile has a 600.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 587.5% more advanced lithography process, and 144.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
