Radeon Vega 7 vs ATI HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 822 | 541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| 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 | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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
−168%
| 75−80
+168%
|
| Full HD | 40
+66.7%
| 24
−66.7%
|
| 1200p | 19
−163%
| 50−55
+163%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−213%
| 25
+213%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−200%
| 18
+200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98 | no data |
| 1440p | 24.88 | no data |
| 4K | 33.17 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−250%
|
28
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−400%
|
20
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−425%
|
63
+425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−208%
|
37
+208%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−74.4%
|
75−80
+74.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−188%
|
23
+188%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−20.8%
|
58
+20.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−125%
|
27
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−192%
|
35
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−183%
|
17
+183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−91.7%
|
23
+91.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−138%
|
19
+138%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−69.8%
|
73
+69.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−163%
|
21
+163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−125%
|
27
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−62.5%
|
13
+62.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+72%
|
25
−72%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14
+16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−105%
|
35−40
+105%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−118%
|
48
+118%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−92.3%
|
25
+92.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 168% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 67% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 163% faster in 1200p
- Vega 7 is 213% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 72% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Vega 7 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 7.47 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
Vega 7 has a 180.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 144.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
