Radeon HD 4850 vs Iris Plus Graphics 640
Aggregate performance score
Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by a considerable 45% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 666 | 777 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.74 | 0.17 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
| Current price | $669 | $138 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Iris Plus Graphics 640 has 335% 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 | 48 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 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 | 52.80 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,000.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Plus Graphics 640 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.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 |
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 graphics 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 | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | N/A |
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.
Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 45% 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%
Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 45% 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%
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%
Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 100% 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 | 40−45
+42.9%
| 28
−42.9%
|
| Full HD | 24
−62.5%
| 39
+62.5%
|
| 1200p | 27−30
+42.1%
| 19
−42.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 43% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 63% faster in 1080p
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 42% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 200% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 is ahead in 52 tests (95%)
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.85 | 2.65 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 25 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 110 Watt |
The Iris Plus Graphics 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 640 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.
