Radeon HD 7480D vs ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 with Radeon HD 7480D, including specs and performance data.
Mobility HD 3870 X2 outperforms HD 7480D by a whopping 212% 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 | 922 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.46 | 0.79 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Scrapper Lite |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 September 2008 (17 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $53 |
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 ×2 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 660 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 1,303 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.56 ×2 | 6.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.2048 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 850 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s ×2 | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| Full HD | 30−35
+173%
| 11
−173%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.82 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27
−59.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 and HD 7480D compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 is 173% 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 ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 surpassed HD 7480D in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.09 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 1 September 2008 | 2 October 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 65 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 has a 211.9% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 7480D, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 71.9% more advanced lithography process, and 69.2% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7480D in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 7480D 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.
