Radeon HD 6670 vs ATI Mobility HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 with Radeon HD 6670, including specs and performance data.
HD 6670 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1182 | 920 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 1.36 | 1.97 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Turks |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 19 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 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) | 35 Watt | 66 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 0.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
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 |
| 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 | - | - |
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 | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 | - |
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 1.81 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 19 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 66 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3850 has 88.6% lower power consumption.
HD 6670, on the other hand, has a 170.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
