ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Mobility Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
ATI Mobility HD 4850 outperforms GT 430 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 972 | 952 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.20 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | M98 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 800 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 20.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 0.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 40 |
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-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 850 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 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 | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API 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 | 4.2 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 35−40
−11.4%
| 39
+11.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.26 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
This is how GT 430 and ATI Mobility HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4850 is 11% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 4850 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4850 is ahead in 13 tests (28%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (72%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.56 | 1.65 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 9 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
GT 430 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 4850, on the other hand, has a 5.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 430 and Mobility Radeon HD 4850.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 4850 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
