Radeon 530 vs HD 4850
Aggregated performance score
HD 4850 outperforms 530 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 773 | 776 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.16 | 0.61 |
| Architecture | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Meso |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (15 years ago) | 21 March 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
| Current price | $138 (0.7x MSRP) | $627 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Radeon 530 has 281% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.
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 | 800 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 24.50 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | 784.1 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon 530 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.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3/GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 28.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
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.
HD 4850 outperforms 530 by 1% 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%
HD 4850 outperforms 530 by 1% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
HD 4850 outperforms 530 by 42% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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%
HD 4850 outperforms 530 by 22% 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%
530 outperforms HD 4850 by 47% 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
+3.7%
| 27−30
−3.7%
|
| Full HD | 40
+150%
| 16
−150%
|
| 1200p | 19
+5.6%
| 18−20
−5.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14
+180%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−233%
|
20
+233%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−400%
|
15
+400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+200%
|
4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+125%
|
4
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
11
+83.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Radeon 530 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 3.7% faster than Radeon 530 in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 150% faster than Radeon 530 in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 5.6% faster than Radeon 530 in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 200% faster than the Radeon 530.
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 530 is 433% faster than the ATI HD 4850.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- Radeon 530 is ahead in 9 tests (17%)
- there's a draw in 42 tests (79%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.65 | 2.62 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 21 March 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 50 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon 530.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Radeon 530 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.
