Radeon R7 250E vs ATI HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon R7 250E, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 250E outperforms ATI HD 4850 by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 824 | 684 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 1.27 |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 5.45 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R7 250E has 388% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.
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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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
−60.7%
| 45−50
+60.7%
|
| Full HD | 40
−62.5%
| 65−70
+62.5%
|
| 1200p | 19
−57.9%
| 30−35
+57.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98
−197%
| 1.68
+197%
|
- R7 250E has 197% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−62.8%
|
70−75
+62.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−63.3%
|
80−85
+63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−62.8%
|
70−75
+62.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−62.8%
|
70−75
+62.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- R7 250E is 61% faster in 900p
- R7 250E is 63% faster in 1080p
- R7 250E is 58% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.67 | 4.37 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 20 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 55 Watt |
R7 250E has a 63.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
