ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile with Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
980 SLI Mobile outperforms HD 4850 by a whopping 1390% 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 | 145 | 874 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 8.51 | 1.71 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4096 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 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 | 2x 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 63.55 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 | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
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 | 400−450
+1329%
| 28
−1329%
|
| Full HD | 137
+243%
| 40
−243%
|
| 1200p | 280−290
+1374%
| 19
−1374%
|
| 4K | 68
+1600%
| 4−5
−1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
| 4K | no data | 49.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+2829%
|
7−8
−2829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+1500%
|
8−9
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+2829%
|
7−8
−2829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+1242%
|
12−14
−1242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+2240%
|
5−6
−2240%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1125%
|
12−14
−1125%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+407%
|
40−45
−407%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+1500%
|
8−9
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+2829%
|
7−8
−2829%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+479%
|
45−50
−479%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+472%
|
24−27
−472%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+1242%
|
12−14
−1242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+2240%
|
5−6
−2240%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+1967%
|
6−7
−1967%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+2075%
|
4−5
−2075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1125%
|
12−14
−1125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+1367%
|
9−10
−1367%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+407%
|
40−45
−407%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+1500%
|
8−9
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+472%
|
24−27
−472%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1125%
|
12−14
−1125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+722%
|
9−10
−722%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+407%
|
40−45
−407%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 160−170
+1242%
|
12−14
−1242%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+1417%
|
6−7
−1417%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+1333%
|
18−20
−1333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+661%
|
21−24
−661%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+1041%
|
21−24
−1041%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+1483%
|
6−7
−1483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+2125%
|
4−5
−2125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+1633%
|
6−7
−1633%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+2325%
|
4−5
−2325%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+427%
|
14−16
−427%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+1775%
|
12−14
−1775%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+1683%
|
6−7
−1683%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
This is how GTX 980 SLI Mobile and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 1329% faster in 900p
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 243% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 1374% faster in 1200p
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 4700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 SLI Mobile surpassed ATI HD 4850 in all 55 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.51 | 2.45 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 25 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 110 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 1390.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 4850 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.
