ATI Radeon HD 4670 vs ATI Xpress 1100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Xpress 1100 and Radeon HD 4670, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI Xpress 1100
2007
0.08
ATI HD 4670
2008, $67
512 MB GDDR3, 59 Watt
0.91
+1038%

HD 4670 outperforms Xpress 1100 by a whopping 1038% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking15491195
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiencyno data1.19
ArchitectureRage 8 (2002−2007)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameRC410RV730
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date17 October 2007 (18 years ago)10 September 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$67

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores6320
Core clock speed300 MHz750 MHz
Boost clock speed300 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data514 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data59 Watt
Texture fill rate0.624.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs28
TMUs232
L1 Cacheno data64 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data193 mm
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data32 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0 (9_0)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGL2.03.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

ATI Xpress 1100 0.08
ATI HD 4670 0.91
+1038%

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.

ATI Xpress 1100 34
Samples: 166
ATI HD 4670 381
+1021%
Samples: 2120

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Palworld 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Palworld 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
Valorant 21−24
−1030%
260−270
+1030%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
−1025%
90−95
+1025%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Palworld 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1000%
55−60
+1000%
Valorant 21−24
−1030%
260−270
+1030%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
−1025%
90−95
+1025%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1000%
55−60
+1000%
Valorant 21−24
−1030%
260−270
+1030%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1033%
170−180
+1033%
Valorant 4−5
−1025%
45−50
+1025%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 0.91
Recency 17 October 2007 10 September 2008
Chip lithography 130 nm 55 nm

ATI HD 4670 has a 1038% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 136% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 4670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1100 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 38 votes

Rate Radeon Xpress 1100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 170 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Xpress 1100 or Radeon HD 4670, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.