ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs R9 280

Place in the ranking	363	809
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.26	0.21
Power efficiency	5.02	1.69
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	Tahiti	RV770
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	25 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280 has 2405% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.

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	1792	800
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	956 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	110 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	25.00
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	1 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	246 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	1x 6-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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	993 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	63.55 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	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.

R9 280 14.40
+441%

ATI HD 4850 2.66

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.

R9 280 5554
+441%

ATI HD 4850 1026

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	150−160 +417%	29 −417%
Full HD	210−220 +425%	40 −425%
1200p	100−110 +426%	19 −426%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

1.33

4.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

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

Full HD
High Preset

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

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how R9 280 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:

R9 280 is 417% faster in 900p
R9 280 is 425% faster in 1080p
R9 280 is 426% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.40	2.66
Recency	4 March 2014	25 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	110 Watt

R9 280 has a 441.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 81.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.

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