AMD R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs ATI HD 4850

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

ATI HD 4850
2.65

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 4850 by 3% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking772763
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.16no data
ArchitectureTerascale 1 (2008−2010)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameRV770Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date25 June 2008 (15 years old)14 January 2014 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data
Current price$138 (0.7x MSRP)no data
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores800384
Core clock speed625 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors956 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.00no data
Floating-point performance1,000.0 gflopsno data

Size and 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length246 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed993 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth63.55 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Videono data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX10.1 (10_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/Ano 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.

ATI HD 4850 2.65
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.72
+2.6%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 4850 by 3% in our combined benchmark results.


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%

ATI HD 4850 8972
+22.3%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 7338

HD 4850 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 22% 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%

ATI HD 4850 11272
+16.8%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 9651

HD 4850 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 17% 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%

ATI HD 4850 72891
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 89954
+23.4%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 4850 by 23% 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:

900p28
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
Full HD40
+186%
14
−186%
1200p19
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%

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
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
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%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+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
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+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

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 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • ATI HD 4850 is 3.7% faster than R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

1080p resolution:

  • ATI HD 4850 is 186% faster than R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

1200p resolution:

  • ATI HD 4850 is 5.6% faster than R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 33.3% faster than the ATI HD 4850.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 13 tests (25%)
  • there's a draw in 40 tests (75%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.65 2.72
Recency 25 June 2008 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop). The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon HD 4850
Radeon HD 4850
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 248 votes

Rate ATI Radeon HD 4850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 20 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.