Mobility Radeon HD 4670 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti outperforms Mobility Radeon HD 4670 by a whopping 1238% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 308 | 1009 |
| Place by popularity | 7 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.09 | 0.10 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) |
| GPU code name | N17P-G1 | M96-XT |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 9 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | no data |
| Current price | $207 (1.5x MSRP) | $143 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 Ti has 5990% better value for money than ATI Mobility HD 4670.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 320 |
| CUDA cores | 768 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 66.82 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | 432.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Mobility Radeon HD 4670 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 25.6 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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 | 51
+1600%
| 3−4
−1600%
|
| 1440p | 30
+1400%
| 2−3
−1400%
|
| 4K | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 64 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
+1125%
|
4−5
−1125%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 41
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 1050 Ti and ATI Mobility HD 4670 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti is 1600% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 1400% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 2500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1050 Ti is 4500% faster than the ATI Mobility HD 4670.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1050 Ti surpassed ATI Mobility HD 4670 in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.32 | 1.22 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 9 January 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 4670 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
