HD Graphics 4000 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 and HD Graphics 4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 4000 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3850 by an impressive 70% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1184 | 1080 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | 1.79 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 1,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 0.256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
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 | Ring Bus |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 7−8
−71.4%
| 12
+71.4%
|
| Full HD | 6−7
−83.3%
| 11
+83.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21
+10.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
17
+41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3850 and HD Graphics 4000 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 4000 is 71% faster in 900p
- HD Graphics 4000 is 83% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 4000 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 4000 is ahead in 28 tests (72%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (28%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.60 | 1.02 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 14 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 22 nm |
HD Graphics 4000 has a 70% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The HD Graphics 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
