ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs R9 280X

Place in the ranking	355	817
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.34	0.25
Power efficiency	4.18	1.67
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	Tahiti	RV770
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	25 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 280X has 2036% 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	2048	800
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	956 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	110 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	25.00
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	1 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	40

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	246 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	993 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 GB/s	63.55 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A

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. 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.

R9 280X 14.49
+468%

ATI HD 4850 2.55

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.

R9 280X 5837
+469%

ATI HD 4850 1026

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.

R9 280X 33045
+268%

ATI HD 4850 8972

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.

R9 280X 52117
+362%

ATI HD 4850 11272

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.

R9 280X 285376
+292%

ATI HD 4850 72891

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	160−170 +452%	29 −452%
Full HD	64 +64.1%	39 −64.1%
1200p	100−110 +426%	19 −426%
4K	33 +560%	5−6 −560%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67 +9.2%	5.10 −9.2%
4K	9.06 +339%	39.80 −339%

R9 280X has 9% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 280X has 339% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +377%	12−14 −377%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Valorant	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
Dota 2	36 +414%	7−8 −414%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +244%	16−18 −244%
Fortnite	80−85 +500%	14−16 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +377%	12−14 −377%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 +671%	7−8 −671%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +336%	24−27 −336%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +420%	10−11 −420%
Valorant	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
World of Tanks	190−200 +298%	45−50 −298%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +717%	6−7 −717%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
Dota 2	137 +1857%	7−8 −1857%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +244%	16−18 −244%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +377%	12−14 −377%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +336%	24−27 −336%
Valorant	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +517%	18−20 −517%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
World of Tanks	100−110 +489%	18−20 −489%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +560%	5−6 −560%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Valorant	35−40 +322%	9−10 −322%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +543%	7−8 −543%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	68 +325%	16−18 −325%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Fortnite	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Valorant	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%

This is how R9 280X and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:

R9 280X is 452% faster in 900p
R9 280X is 64% faster in 1080p
R9 280X is 426% faster in 1200p
R9 280X is 560% faster in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 3700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 280X is ahead in 58 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.49	2.55
Recency	8 October 2013	25 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	110 Watt

R9 280X has a 468.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 127.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.

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