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 minimal 4% 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 | 1012 | 996 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.24 | 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
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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
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 | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | 4.2 | 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
−17.1%
| 41
+17.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.26 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| God of War | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 430 and ATI Mobility HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4850 is 17% faster 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 4850 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4850 performs better in 14 tests (29%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (71%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 1.50 |
| 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 4.2% 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 graphics card while Mobility Radeon HD 4850 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.
