GeForce GTX 850M vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 514% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 99 | 536 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 27.58 | 3.74 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | N15P-GT |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (5 years ago) | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | no data |
| Current price | $974 (1.1x MSRP) | $163 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4000 has 637% better value for money than GTX 850M.
Technical specs
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 | 2304 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | Up to 936 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 36.08 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,155 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro RTX 4000 and GeForce GTX 850M 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 13000 MHz | Up to 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 80.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 514% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 515% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 775% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 831% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce GTX 850M by 913% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 500−550
+495%
| 84
−495%
|
| Full HD | 190−200
+494%
| 32
−494%
|
| 4K | 60−65
+500%
| 10
−500%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 39.81 | 6.48 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 45 Watt |
The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 850M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 850M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
