ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs Iris Graphics 550
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Graphics 550 with Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 550 outperforms HD 4850 by a considerable 42% 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 | 783 | 884 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 17.81 | 1.72 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT3e | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 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 | 384 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 2x 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 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 | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 35−40
+25%
| 28
−25%
|
| Full HD | 20
−100%
| 40
+100%
|
| 1200p | 24−27
+26.3%
| 19
−26.3%
|
| 1440p | 28
+55.6%
| 18−20
−55.6%
|
| 4K | 50
+42.9%
| 35−40
−42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.06 |
| 4K | no data | 5.69 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+18.6%
|
40−45
−18.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 54
+12.5%
|
45−50
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+12%
|
24−27
−12%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+18.6%
|
40−45
−18.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 25
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+18.6%
|
40−45
−18.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 28
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Iris Graphics 550 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- Iris Graphics 550 is 25% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 100% faster in 1080p
- Iris Graphics 550 is 26% faster in 1200p
- Iris Graphics 550 is 56% faster in 1440p
- Iris Graphics 550 is 43% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Iris Graphics 550 is 167% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Graphics 550 performs better in 47 tests (92%)
- ATI HD 4850 performs better in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.47 | 2.45 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 25 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 110 Watt |
Iris Graphics 550 has a 42% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 293% more advanced lithography process, and 633% lower power consumption.
The Iris Graphics 550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Graphics 550 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.
