GeForce GT 420M vs Radeon HD 6850M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6850M and GeForce GT 420M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6850M outperforms GT 420M by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 897 | 1114 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.76 | 3.02 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Granville | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) |
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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.00 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.08 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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.
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 | 20
+66.7%
| 12
−66.7%
|
| Full HD | 26
+44.4%
| 18
−44.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD 6850M and GT 420M compete in popular games:
- HD 6850M is 67% faster in 900p
- HD 6850M is 44% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6850M is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6850M is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.75 | 0.88 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 3 September 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
HD 6850M has a 98.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.
GT 420M, on the other hand, has 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6850M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M 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.
