ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon HD 4850, including specs and performance data.
Tiger Lake-U Graphics G7 outperforms HD 4850 by a whopping 278% 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 | 507 | 876 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.22 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.71 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | RV770 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 25 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
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 | 96 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 25.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 246 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 993 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 63.55 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 | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 100−110
+257%
| 28
−257%
|
| Full HD | 150−160
+275%
| 40
−275%
|
| 1200p | 70−75
+268%
| 19
−268%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+198%
|
45−50
−198%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+172%
|
24−27
−172%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+172%
|
24−27
−172%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+395%
|
21−24
−395%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+308%
|
12−14
−308%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 257% faster in 900p
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 275% faster in 1080p
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 268% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 performs better in 41 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.22 | 2.44 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 25 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 55 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 277.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.
The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
