GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 with GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 10437% 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 | 1237 | 18 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 70.24 |
| Power efficiency | 1.50 | 25.08 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | M88 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
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 | 320 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 80 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 7 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 48 MB |
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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 504.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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:
| Full HD | 2−3
−10600%
| 214
+10600%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−13200%
| 133
+13200%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 81 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.80 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.50 |
| 4K | no data | 7.40 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9700%
|
196
+9700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9100%
|
184
+9100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 203 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5760%
|
290−300
+5760%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1386%
|
400−450
+1386%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−1295%
|
270−280
+1295%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7850%
|
159
+7850%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−10317%
|
1250−1300
+10317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 200 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5760%
|
290−300
+5760%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−18400%
|
185
+18400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−6767%
|
412
+6767%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1386%
|
400−450
+1386%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7100%
|
144
+7100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−10317%
|
1250−1300
+10317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 190 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5760%
|
290−300
+5760%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3250%
|
201
+3250%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1386%
|
400−450
+1386%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−7567%
|
230−240
+7567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−17100%
|
500−550
+17100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−12800%
|
250−260
+12800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−7600%
|
154
+7600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1086%
|
166
+1086%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10867%
|
300−350
+10867%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3850 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 10600% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 13200% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4070 SUPER is 18400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER performs better in 27 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 71.65 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 220 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3850 has 529% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 10437% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 3850 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER 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.
