FirePro S9050 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4670 with FirePro S9050, including specs and performance data.
S9050 outperforms Mobility HD 4670 by a whopping 956% 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 | 1126 | 450 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.44 | 4.01 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | M96 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (17 years ago) | 7 August 2014 (11 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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 514 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 768 KB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 254 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 264 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−900%
|
70−75
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−838%
|
300−310
+838%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−937%
|
280−290
+937%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−900%
|
150−160
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−900%
|
70−75
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−838%
|
300−310
+838%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−900%
|
150−160
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−900%
|
70−75
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−838%
|
300−310
+838%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−900%
|
70−75
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−900%
|
120−130
+900%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−900%
|
140−150
+900%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.11 | 11.72 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 7 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 4670 has 543% lower power consumption.
FirePro S9050, on the other hand, has a 956% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro S9050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 4670 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S9050 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
