GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 777 | 908 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 49 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GK208B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (15 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $34.99 |
| Current price | $138 (0.7x MSRP) | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
ATI HD 4850 has 325% better value for money than GT 710.
Detailed specifications
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 | 800 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | 366.3 gflops |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 246 mm | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 14.4 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 DVI, 1x S-Video | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
| PureVideo | no data | + |
| PhysX | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 63% based on our aggregate 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%
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 63% in Passmark.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 55% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 3% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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 | 28
+75%
| 16−18
−75%
|
| Full HD | 39
+457%
| 7
−457%
|
| 1200p | 19
+90%
| 10−12
−90%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
+60%
| 5
−60%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+42.9%
| 7
−42.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+50%
|
8
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
15
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+300%
|
3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5
−20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
15
+66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 75% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 457% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 90% faster in 1200p
- ATI HD 4850 is 60% faster in 1440p
- ATI HD 4850 is 43% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 300% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 710 is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 39 tests (89%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 27 March 2014 |
| Cost | $199 | $34.99 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 19 Watt |
The Radeon HD 4850 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
