ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs GeForce MX130
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX130 with Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
MX130 outperforms HD 4850 by an impressive 75% 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 | 728 | 893 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 11.11 | 1.73 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2017 (8 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 1122 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1242 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.81 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.9539 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 160 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 63.55 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 | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 45−50
+60.7%
| 28
−60.7%
|
| Full HD | 17
−135%
| 40
+135%
|
| 1200p | 30−35
+57.9%
| 19
−57.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 32
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+58.3%
|
45−50
−58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+40%
|
24−27
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Fortnite | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+12%
|
24−27
−12%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+47.8%
|
21−24
−47.8%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+115%
|
20−22
−115%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GeForce MX130 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX130 is 61% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 135% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX130 is 58% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX130 is 400% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX130 performs better in 51 tests (94%)
- ATI HD 4850 performs better in 3 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.31 | 2.46 |
| Recency | 17 November 2017 | 25 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 110 Watt |
GeForce MX130 has a 75% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96% more advanced lithography process, and 267% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX130 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX130 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
