ATI Radeon HD 3850 vs GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile with Radeon HD 3850, including specs and performance data.
1080 Mobile outperforms HD 3850 by a whopping 3303% 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 | 181 | 1166 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.97 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 16.74 | 0.98 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | RV670 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 19 November 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499.99 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1080 Mobile has 39825% better value for money than ATI HD 3850.
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 | 2560 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 668 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1771 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 666 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 283.4 | 10.69 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.068 TFLOPS | 0.4275 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 208 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 830 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 53.12 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 | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 115
+3733%
| 3−4
−3733%
|
| 1440p | 71
+3450%
| 2−3
−3450%
|
| 4K | 55
+5400%
| 1−2
−5400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.35
+1272%
| 59.67
−1272%
|
| 1440p | 7.04
+1171%
| 89.50
−1171%
|
| 4K | 9.09
+1869%
| 179.00
−1869%
|
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 1272% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 1171% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 1869% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3620%
|
5−6
−3620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3620%
|
5−6
−3620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+4450%
|
2−3
−4450%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+3475%
|
4−5
−3475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+3500%
|
3−4
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+4333%
|
3−4
−4333%
|
| Valorant | 188
+3660%
|
5−6
−3660%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3620%
|
5−6
−3620%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+3375%
|
8−9
−3375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+3350%
|
4−5
−3350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Fortnite | 201
+3920%
|
5−6
−3920%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142
+3450%
|
4−5
−3450%
|
| Valorant | 186
+3620%
|
5−6
−3620%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Dota 2 | 120
+3900%
|
3−4
−3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+3500%
|
3−4
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 91
+4450%
|
2−3
−4450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Valorant | 137
+3325%
|
4−5
−3325%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 150
+3650%
|
4−5
−3650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+3767%
|
6−7
−3767%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+3400%
|
5−6
−3400%
|
| Valorant | 183
+3560%
|
5−6
−3560%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 88
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Valorant | 178
+3460%
|
5−6
−3460%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Mobile and ATI HD 3850 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 3733% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 3450% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 5400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.67 | 0.96 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 19 November 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1080 Mobile has a 3303.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 243.8% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 3850, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 3850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
