ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon HD 4850, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 56 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a whopping 1182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 156 | 821 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.19 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 11.25 | 1.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | RV770 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX Vega 56 has 9176% 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 | 3584 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 224 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 246 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 63.55 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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.
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 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 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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 350−400
+1107%
| 29
−1107%
|
| Full HD | 115
+195%
| 39
−195%
|
| 1200p | 240−250
+1163%
| 19
−1163%
|
| 1440p | 74
+1380%
| 5−6
−1380%
|
| 4K | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47
+47.1%
| 5.10
−47.1%
|
| 1440p | 5.39
+638%
| 39.80
−638%
|
| 4K | 8.31
+698%
| 66.33
−698%
|
- RX Vega 56 has 47% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 has 638% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 has 698% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 88
+1367%
|
6−7
−1367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1138%
|
12−14
−1138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+6700%
|
2−3
−6700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 156
+2500%
|
6−7
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Dota 2 | 63
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+469%
|
16−18
−469%
|
| Fortnite | 140
+900%
|
14−16
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1138%
|
12−14
−1138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+1243%
|
7−8
−1243%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+656%
|
24−27
−656%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+1080%
|
10−11
−1080%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+6700%
|
2−3
−6700%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+479%
|
45−50
−479%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+1486%
|
7−8
−1486%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+469%
|
16−18
−469%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+1138%
|
12−14
−1138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 112
+348%
|
24−27
−348%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+6700%
|
2−3
−6700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+1117%
|
18−20
−1117%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 67
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+1457%
|
7−8
−1457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1033%
|
9−10
−1033%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 50
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+233%
|
14−16
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1443%
|
7−8
−1443%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+233%
|
14−16
−233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+300%
|
16−18
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 1107% faster in 900p
- RX Vega 56 is 195% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 1163% faster in 1200p
- RX Vega 56 is 1380% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 1500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 9500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 56 surpassed ATI HD 4850 in all 59 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.07 | 2.58 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 25 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 110 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 1181.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 90.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
