ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870 vs GeForce 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 820M and Mobility Radeon HD 3870, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI Mobility HD 3870 outperforms 820M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1046 | 1017 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.86 | 1.74 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | M88 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 June 2008 (16 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 660 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 666 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 10.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 54.4 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | - |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 16
+0%
| 16−18
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GeForce 820M and ATI Mobility HD 3870 compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 3870 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 3870 is ahead in 19 tests (40%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (60%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.28 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 27 November 2013 | 4 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
GeForce 820M has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.
ATI Mobility HD 3870, on the other hand, has a 8.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce 820M and Mobility Radeon HD 3870.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
