FirePro W4170M vs ATI Radeon HD 5850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5850 with FirePro W4170M, including specs and performance data.
HD 5850 outperforms W4170M by an impressive 89% 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 | 690 | 877 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.42 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Cypress | Opal |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 30 September 2009 (16 years ago) | 23 April 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | 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 | 1440 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 52.20 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.088 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 72 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 64 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 HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
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 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 59
+96.7%
| 30−35
−96.7%
|
| Full HD | 57
+159%
| 22
−159%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.25 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+39.5%
|
40−45
−39.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+69.4%
|
45−50
−69.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+57.7%
|
24−27
−57.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+39.5%
|
40−45
−39.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+57.7%
|
24−27
−57.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+39.5%
|
40−45
−39.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+94.7%
|
18−20
−94.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+136%
|
21−24
−136%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how ATI HD 5850 and W4170M compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5850 is 97% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5850 is 159% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 5850 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI HD 5850 surpassed W4170M in all 51 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.75 | 2.51 |
| Recency | 30 September 2009 | 23 April 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
ATI HD 5850 has a 89% higher aggregate performance score.
W4170M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 5850 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4170M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5850 is a desktop graphics card while FirePro W4170M 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.
