HD Graphics vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 and HD Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI HD 4850 outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 243% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 822 | 1162 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 69 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | 1.53 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (12 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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 6.300 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.1008 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 1 |
| TMUs | 40 | 6 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.80 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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
+263%
| 8−9
−263%
|
| Full HD | 39
+290%
| 10−12
−290%
|
| 1200p | 19
+280%
| 5−6
−280%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| ELDEN RING | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| ELDEN RING | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| ELDEN RING | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| ELDEN RING | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 4850 and HD Graphics compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 263% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 290% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 280% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.64 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
ATI HD 4850 has a 242.9% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 214.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 4850 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 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.
