GeForce GT 420M vs ATI Radeon HD 4350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4350 with GeForce GT 420M, including specs and performance data.
GT 420M outperforms ATI HD 4350 by a whopping 151% 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 | 1273 | 1120 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.39 | 3.03 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | RV710 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 September 2008 (16 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (14 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 | 80 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 242 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 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.
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:
| 900p | 4−5
−200%
| 12
+200%
|
| Full HD | 7
−157%
| 18
+157%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−71.4%
|
24−27
+71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Valorant | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 4350 and GT 420M compete in popular games:
- GT 420M is 200% faster in 900p
- GT 420M is 157% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GT 420M is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 420M is ahead in 22 tests (65%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (35%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 0.88 |
| Recency | 30 September 2008 | 3 September 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 23 Watt |
ATI HD 4350 has 15% lower power consumption.
GT 420M, on the other hand, has a 151.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 420M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4350 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 420M 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.
