GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs ATI Radeon HD 5850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5850 and GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms ATI HD 5850 by a whopping 1413% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 630 | 11 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.62 | 67.47 |
| Power efficiency | 2.36 | 24.49 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cypress | AD104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4070 SUPER has 10782% better value for money than ATI HD 5850.
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 | 1440 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.20 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.088 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 80 |
| TMUs | 72 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 504.2 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 HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 59
−1341%
| 850−900
+1341%
|
| Full HD | 55
−296%
| 218
+296%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−1511%
| 145
+1511%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−1600%
| 85
+1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.44
−97.9%
| 2.75
+97.9%
|
| 1440p | 33.22
−704%
| 4.13
+704%
|
| 4K | 59.80
−749%
| 7.05
+749%
|
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 98% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 704% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 749% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1591%
|
186
+1591%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−631%
|
110−120
+631%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1555%
|
182
+1555%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−2070%
|
434
+2070%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1980%
|
200−210
+1980%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−1183%
|
150−160
+1183%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−806%
|
140−150
+806%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2833%
|
400−450
+2833%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−631%
|
110−120
+631%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1345%
|
159
+1345%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−918%
|
173
+918%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−508%
|
152
+508%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−927%
|
300−350
+927%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−2040%
|
428
+2040%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1980%
|
200−210
+1980%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−918%
|
173
+918%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−517%
|
74
+517%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−389%
|
210−220
+389%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−806%
|
140−150
+806%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−924%
|
170−180
+924%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2833%
|
400−450
+2833%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
−232%
|
270−280
+232%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−631%
|
110−120
+631%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1164%
|
139
+1164%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1371%
|
250−260
+1371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−476%
|
140−150
+476%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−1805%
|
381
+1805%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1980%
|
200−210
+1980%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−389%
|
210−220
+389%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2833%
|
400−450
+2833%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−2860%
|
148
+2860%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−2860%
|
148
+2860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−430%
|
170−180
+430%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−2225%
|
90−95
+2225%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−1295%
|
500−550
+1295%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−988%
|
85−90
+988%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3213%
|
265
+3213%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−2157%
|
150−160
+2157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−3325%
|
130−140
+3325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1825%
|
154
+1825%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2536%
|
350−400
+2536%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−876%
|
166
+876%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−938%
|
166
+938%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1293%
|
200−210
+1293%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2033%
|
60−65
+2033%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−938%
|
166
+938%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2175%
|
90−95
+2175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1371%
|
250−260
+1371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1650%
|
100−110
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2540%
|
132
+2540%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4220%
|
210−220
+4220%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 5850 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 1341% faster in 900p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 296% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 1511% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4070 SUPER is 4220% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is ahead in 52 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.96 | 75.04 |
| Recency | 30 September 2009 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | 220 Watt |
ATI HD 5850 has 45.7% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 1412.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5850 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.
