Radeon HD 6670 vs Mobility HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
HD 6670 outperforms Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1139 | 871 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Architecture | RV6xx (2007−2010) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Turks |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 1 December 2007 (16 years ago) | 19 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
| Current price | no data | $134 (1.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 320 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 66 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 371.2 gflops | 768.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Mobility Radeon HD 3850 and Radeon HD 6670 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.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 64 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 1.89 |
| Recency | 1 December 2007 | 19 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 66 Watt |
The Radeon HD 6670 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 card while Radeon HD 6670 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.
