Radeon HD 6470M vs Quadro FX 4800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with Radeon HD 6470M, including specs and performance data.
FX 4800 outperforms HD 6470M by a whopping 335% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 834 | 1221 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Seymour |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,799 | $569.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FX 4800 has 500% better value for money than HD 6470M.
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 | 192 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.53 | 5.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 0.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 12.8 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.3 | - |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 40−45
+300%
| 10
−300%
|
| Full HD | 55−60
+323%
| 13
−323%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 32.71
+34%
| 43.85
−34%
|
- FX 4800 has 34% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FX 4800 and HD 6470M compete in popular games:
- FX 4800 is 300% faster in 900p
- FX 4800 is 323% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 31 test (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.22 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 11 November 2008 | 4 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
FX 4800 has a 335.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD 6470M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro FX 4800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6470M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation card while Radeon HD 6470M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
