Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms HD 4850 by a whopping 291% 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 | 895 | 509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.73 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Xe LPG (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Meteor Lake iGPU |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
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 | 800 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | no data |
| 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 S-Video | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| 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 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 | 28
−257%
| 100−110
+257%
|
| Full HD | 40
+60%
| 25
−60%
|
| 1200p | 19
−268%
| 70−75
+268%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−438%
|
40−45
+438%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−417%
|
30−35
+417%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−317%
|
50
+317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−112%
|
90−95
+112%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−167%
|
16
+167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−438%
|
40−45
+438%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−275%
|
180−190
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−280%
|
95−100
+280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−383%
|
55−60
+383%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−225%
|
39
+225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−200%
|
15
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−112%
|
90−95
+112%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−438%
|
40−45
+438%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−280%
|
95−100
+280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−417%
|
30−35
+417%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−150%
|
30
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−112%
|
90−95
+112%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−311%
|
70−75
+311%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−283%
|
21−24
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:
- Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 257% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 60% faster in 1080p
- Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 268% 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 Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) performs better in 36 tests (62%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 14 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 5 nm |
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 291% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.
The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop graphics card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 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.
