GeForce GTS 160M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5850 and GeForce GTS 160M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Mobility HD 5850 outperforms GTS 160M by a small 7% 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 | 991 | 1007 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.49 | 2.10 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Broadway | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) |
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 | 800 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 288 |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 64 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 | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 51 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 | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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 | 19
+18.8%
| 16−18
−18.8%
|
| Full HD | 25
+19%
| 21−24
−19%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5850 and GTS 160M compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 19% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 19% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5850 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5850 performs better in 29 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.74 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 3 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 60 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5850 has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 63% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Mobility Radeon HD 5850 and GeForce GTS 160M.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
