Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs ATI HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.
Pro 16 outperforms HD 4850 by a whopping 369% 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 | 884 | 456 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.72 | 11.81 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 800 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 76.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 2.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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.
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
−364%
| 130−140
+364%
|
| Full HD | 40
−47.5%
| 59
+47.5%
|
| 1200p | 19
−347%
| 85−90
+347%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−375%
| 38
+375%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98 | no data |
| 4K | 24.88 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−967%
|
60−65
+967%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−967%
|
60−65
+967%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−475%
|
65−70
+475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−250%
|
40−45
+250%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−144%
|
100−110
+144%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−967%
|
60−65
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−250%
|
160−170
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−200%
|
75
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−475%
|
65−70
+475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−780%
|
40−45
+780%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−250%
|
40−45
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−144%
|
100−110
+144%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−188%
|
72
+188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−250%
|
40−45
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−200%
|
27
+200%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−144%
|
100−110
+144%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−475%
|
65−70
+475%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−389%
|
85−90
+389%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−252%
|
80−85
+252%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−495%
|
120−130
+495%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−367%
|
27−30
+367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−417%
|
60−65
+417%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−533%
|
38
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is 364% faster in 900p
- Pro Vega 16 is 48% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 16 is 347% faster in 1200p
- Pro Vega 16 is 375% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 performs better in 51 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.45 | 11.50 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 14 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro Vega 16 has a 369% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 293% more advanced lithography process, and 47% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
