ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2 vs HD Graphics 4000

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4000 with Radeon HD 4850 X2, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4000
2012
1.18

ATI HD 4850 X2 outperforms HD Graphics 4000 by a whopping 148% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1062781
Place by popularity42not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.12
Power efficiency1.830.82
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT2R700
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)7 November 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$420

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores128800
Core clock speed650 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,200 million956 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown250 Watt
Texture fill rate16.0025.00
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPS1 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs1640

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared995 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data63.68 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (11_0)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.03.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

HD Graphics 4000 1.18
ATI HD 4850 X2 2.93
+148%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

HD Graphics 4000 454
ATI HD 4850 X2 1132
+149%

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:

900p12
−125%
27−30
+125%
Full HD10
−140%
24−27
+140%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data17.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−134%
75−80
+134%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−131%
30−33
+131%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−134%
75−80
+134%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−145%
27−30
+145%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−134%
75−80
+134%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

This is how HD Graphics 4000 and ATI HD 4850 X2 compete in popular games:

  • ATI HD 4850 X2 is 125% faster in 900p
  • ATI HD 4850 X2 is 140% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 2.93
Recency 14 May 2012 7 November 2008
Chip lithography 22 nm 55 nm

HD Graphics 4000 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4850 X2, on the other hand, has a 148.3% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon HD 4850 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4000 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4850 X2 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 4000
HD Graphics 4000
ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2
Radeon HD 4850 X2

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 5202 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4850 X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.