GeForce GTX 850A vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with GeForce GTX 850A, including specs and performance data.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.74
+0.7%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GTX 850A by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking795798
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data4.32
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreGM107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years ago)17 March 2014 (10 years ago)

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 cores384640
Core clock speed720 MHz902 MHz
Boost clock speedno data936 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data45 Watt
Texture fill rateno data37.44
Floating-point processing powerno data1.198 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data40

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-5.0

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:

Full HD14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GTX 850A compete in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 17% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.74 2.72
Recency 14 January 2014 17 March 2014

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 850A, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GeForce GTX 850A.

Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 850A is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850A
GeForce GTX 850A

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 21 vote

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 850A 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.