ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850 vs R9 290X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 290X with Mobility Radeon HD 5850, including specs and performance data.
R9 290X outperforms Mobility HD 5850 by a whopping 921% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 343 | 981 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.31 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.72 | 4.47 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | Broadway |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2816 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 947 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 176.0 | 20.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.632 TFLOPS | 0.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 176 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 190−200
+900%
| 19
−900%
|
| Full HD | 86
+244%
| 25
−244%
|
| 4K | 50
+1150%
| 4−5
−1150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.38 | no data |
| 4K | 10.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+518%
|
10−12
−518%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+276%
|
35−40
−276%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280
+657%
|
35−40
−657%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+425%
|
20−22
−425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 67
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+518%
|
10−12
−518%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+276%
|
35−40
−276%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 136
+580%
|
20−22
−580%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+300%
|
10−12
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+276%
|
35−40
−276%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+833%
|
18−20
−833%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1630%
|
10−11
−1630%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+271%
|
14−16
−271%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1175%
|
8−9
−1175%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 84
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
This is how R9 290X and ATI Mobility HD 5850 compete in popular games:
- R9 290X is 900% faster in 900p
- R9 290X is 244% faster in 1080p
- R9 290X is 1150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R9 290X is 5000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 290X surpassed ATI Mobility HD 5850 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.76 | 1.74 |
| Recency | 24 October 2013 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 30 Watt |
R9 290X has a 921% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 5850, on the other hand, has 733% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 290X is a desktop graphics card while Mobility Radeon HD 5850 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
