Radeon HD 4850 vs GeForce GTX 960M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by a whopping 231% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 457 | 775 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.45 | 0.17 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) |
| GPU code name | N16P-GX | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
| Current price | $799 | $138 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 960M has 753% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.
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 | 640 | 800 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1202 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 1,000.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 960M and Radeon HD 4850 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | 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 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 63.55 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 231% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 231% in Passmark.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 167% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 210% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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:
| 900p | 95
+239%
| 28
−239%
|
| Full HD | 36
−11.1%
| 40
+11.1%
|
| 1200p | 60−65
+216%
| 19
−216%
|
| 1440p | 15
+275%
| 4−5
−275%
|
| 4K | 13
+333%
| 3−4
−333%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 23
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 960M and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- GTX 960M is 239% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 11% faster in 1080p
- GTX 960M is 216% faster in 1200p
- GTX 960M is 275% faster in 1440p
- GTX 960M is 333% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960M is 1700% faster than the ATI HD 4850.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 960M is ahead in 52 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.78 | 2.65 |
| Recency | 12 March 2015 | 25 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 110 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop 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.
