GeForce GTX 850M vs Radeon RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT with GeForce GTX 850M, including specs and performance data.
RX 5600 XT outperforms GTX 850M by a whopping 437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 149 | 583 |
| Place by popularity | 80 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 53.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.09 | 9.98 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | Up to 936 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 36.08 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | 1.155 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | Up to 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 80.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | - | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
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 | 450−500
+436%
| 84
−436%
|
| Full HD | 110
+244%
| 32
−244%
|
| 1440p | 64
+540%
| 10−12
−540%
|
| 4K | 38
+280%
| 10
−280%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.54 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.36 | no data |
| 4K | 7.34 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 147
+880%
|
14−16
−880%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+592%
|
12−14
−592%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 115
+667%
|
14−16
−667%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+385%
|
12−14
−385%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 148
+679%
|
18−20
−679%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
+561%
|
27−30
−561%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+764%
|
14−16
−764%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+470%
|
21−24
−470%
|
| Valorant | 275
+299%
|
65−70
−299%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 66
+340%
|
14−16
−340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+308%
|
12−14
−308%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+179%
|
99
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Dota 2 | 185
+278%
|
45−50
−278%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+611%
|
18−20
−611%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+518%
|
27−30
−518%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 91
+550%
|
14−16
−550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+530%
|
20
−530%
|
| Metro Exodus | 81
+575%
|
12−14
−575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+470%
|
21−24
−470%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
+567%
|
21
−567%
|
| Valorant | 272
+294%
|
65−70
−294%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+262%
|
12−14
−262%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+243%
|
45−50
−243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+563%
|
18−20
−563%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
+393%
|
27−30
−393%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85
+507%
|
14−16
−507%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+470%
|
21−24
−470%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+664%
|
11
−664%
|
| Valorant | 148
+114%
|
65−70
−114%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+379%
|
45−50
−379%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
+771%
|
7−8
−771%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+373%
|
35−40
−373%
|
| Valorant | 252
+265%
|
65−70
−265%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+770%
|
10−11
−770%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+642%
|
12−14
−642%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+627%
|
14−16
−627%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+592%
|
12−14
−592%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
+271%
|
16−18
−271%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Valorant | 214
+590%
|
30−35
−590%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+350%
|
21−24
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+678%
|
9−10
−678%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
This is how RX 5600 XT and GTX 850M compete in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is 436% faster in 900p
- RX 5600 XT is 244% faster in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT is 540% faster in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT is 280% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 5600 XT is 2900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 5600 XT surpassed GTX 850M in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.20 | 6.55 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
RX 5600 XT has a 437.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 850M, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 850M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 850M 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.
