Quadro NVS 290 vs ATI Radeon HD 4850

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Quadro NVS 290, including specs and performance data.

ATI HD 4850
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 110 Watt
2.66
+351%

ATI HD 4850 outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8041198
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.21no data
Power efficiency1.681.95
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameRV770G86
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date25 June 2008 (16 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

ATI HD 4850 and NVS 290 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores80016
Core clock speed625 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors956 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate25.003.672
Floating-point processing power1 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs408

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length246 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed993 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth63.55 GB/s6.4 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x DMS-59

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX10.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.1

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.

ATI HD 4850 2.66
+351%
NVS 290 0.59

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.

ATI HD 4850 1026
+350%
NVS 290 228

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:

900p29
+383%
6−7
−383%
Full HD40
+400%
8−9
−400%
1200p19
+375%
4−5
−375%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how ATI HD 4850 and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

  • ATI HD 4850 is 383% faster in 900p
  • ATI HD 4850 is 400% faster in 1080p
  • ATI HD 4850 is 375% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.66 0.59
Recency 25 June 2008 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 21 Watt

ATI HD 4850 has a 350.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 423.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 4850 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon HD 4850
Radeon HD 4850
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 265 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.