Radeon 610M vs HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
610M outperforms HD 4850 by a small 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 777 | 753 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 45 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | no data |
| Architecture | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) | RDNA 2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | RDNA 2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (15 years ago) | 20 September 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
| Current price | $138 (0.7x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 15.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon 610M 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 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
610M outperforms HD 4850 by 8% 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%
610M outperforms HD 4850 by 8% 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 610M by 15% 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%
610M outperforms HD 4850 by 24% 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%
610M outperforms HD 4850 by 120% 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
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| Full HD | 39
+200%
| 13
−200%
|
| 1200p | 19
+5.6%
| 18−21
−5.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−41.7%
|
17
+41.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−90%
|
19
+90%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
11
+83.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 610M is 7% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 200% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 6% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 610M is 700% faster than the ATI HD 4850.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 610M is ahead in 32 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.65 | 2.85 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 20 September 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 15 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon 610M.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Radeon 610M is a notebook one.
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.
