ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4870 vs ATI HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Mobility Radeon HD 4870, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 4850 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 4870 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 816 | 871 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | M98 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 22.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.88 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 888 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 56.83 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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. 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.
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
+38.1%
| 21−24
−38.1%
|
| Full HD | 39
+50%
| 26
−50%
|
| 1200p | 19
+35.7%
| 14−16
−35.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 45−50
+19.5%
|
40−45
−19.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and ATI Mobility HD 4870 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 38% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 50% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 36% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 38 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.67 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 9 January 2009 |
ATI HD 4850 has a 24.8% higher aggregate performance score.
ATI Mobility HD 4870, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months.
The Radeon HD 4850 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4870 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 4870 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.
