Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon HD 4850

Reasons to consider the
ATi Radeon HD 4850

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 625 MHz vs 450 MHz Around 40% higher clock speed
Better floating-point performance 1,000 GFLOPS vs 17.6 GFLOPS More than 56.8x better floating-point performance
More shading units 800 vs 8 792 more shading units
More render output processors 16 vs 4 12 more render output processors
Slightly higher pixel rate 10 GPixel/s vs 1.8 GPixel/s More than 5.5x higher pixel rate
More texture mapping units 40 vs 8 32 more texture mapping units
Front view of GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel

Reasons to consider the
Intel GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel

Report a correction
Significantly lower TDP 12W vs 110W 9.2x lower TDP

Features Key features of the Radeon HD 4850  vs GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel 

pixel rate Number of pixels a graphics card can render to the screen every second

Radeon HD 4850
10 GPixel/s

texture rate Speed at which a graphics card can perform texture mapping

Radeon HD 4850
25 GTexel/s

floating point performance How fast the gpu can crunch numbers

Radeon HD 4850
1,000 GFLOPS

shading units Subcomponents of the gpu, these run in parallel to enable fast pixel shading

texture mapping units Built into each gpu, these resize and rotate bitmaps for texturing scenes

render output processors GPU commponents responsible for transform pixels as they flow between memory buffers

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Radeon HD 4850  vs
GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel 
GPU brand ATI Nvidia
GPU name RV770 MCP79MX
Clock speed 625 MHz 450 MHz
Is dual GPU No No
Reference card None None

noise and power

TDP 110W 12W

raw performance

Radeon HD 4850  vs
GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel 
Shading units 800 8
Texture mapping units 40 8
Render output processors 16 4
Pixel rate 10 GPixel/s 1.8 GPixel/s
Texture rate 25 GTexel/s 3.6 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance 1,000 GFLOPS 17.6 GFLOPS


comments powered by Disqus