GeForce GT 335M vs ATI Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3850 with GeForce GT 335M, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 3850 outperforms GT 335M by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1115 | 1124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.93 | 2.40 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV670 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 November 2007 (17 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | no data |
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 | 72 |
| Core clock speed | 668 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.69 | 10.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4275 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 233 |
| 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 208 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 830 MHz | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 53.12 GB/s | 25.6 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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:
| Full HD | 16−18
+0%
| 16
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
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 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 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 ATI HD 3850 and GT 335M compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 0.85 |
| Recency | 19 November 2007 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 28 Watt |
ATI HD 3850 has a 3.5% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 335M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 167.9% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce GT 335M.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3850 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 335M 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.
