Radeon RX 6650M XT vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Radeon RX 6650M XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6650M XT outperforms RTX 3050 4GB Mobile by an impressive 76% 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 | 298 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | 46 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.43 | 24.95 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (5 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (4 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2416 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 309.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 9.896 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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:
| Full HD | 59
−41%
| 100−110 |
| 1440p | 43 | 75−80
+74.4%
|
| 4K | 27 | 45−50
+66.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 71 | 110−120
+64.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 | 210−220
+26.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 | 90−95
+37.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 54 | 110−120
+117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 130−140
+43%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125 | 210−220
+72%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52 | 90−95
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68 | 120−130
+83.8%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 160−170
+49.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 150−160
+75.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 230−240
+47.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 32 | 110−120
+266%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89 | 130−140
+49.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36 | 210−220
+497%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 270−280
+11.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41 | 90−95
+122%
|
| Dota 2 | 118 | 140−150
+22%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64 | 120−130
+95.3%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 60 | 110−120
+88.3%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 160−170
+49.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 120−130
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 90−95
+89.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 150−160
+75.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81 | 140−150
+72.8%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 230−240
+47.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83 | 130−140
+60.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34 | 90−95
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 112 | 140−150
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 120−130
+105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 150−160
+75.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46 | 140−150
+204%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 230−240
+47.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 160−170
+49.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 95−100
+111%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170 | 270−280
+71.3%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 50 | 70−75
+46%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48 | 80−85
+68.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 55−60
+96.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180
+0.6%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 260−270
+44.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 66 | 100−105
+51.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 45−50
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49 | 95−100
+93.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 110−120
+94.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 75−80
+114%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 100−110
+96.2%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 45−50
+109%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 12−14 | 30−35
+158%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44 | 85−90
+95.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 35−40
+106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 60−65
+114%
|
| Valorant | 120−130 | 230−240
+95.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 45−50
+109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 21−24
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 62 | 110−120
+79%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 50−55
+174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 70−75
+89.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 50−55
+130%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 50−55
+113%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and RX 6650M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6650M XT is 69% faster in 1080p
- RX 6650M XT is 74% faster in 1440p
- RX 6650M XT is 67% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 497% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6650M XT surpassed RTX 3050 4GB Mobile in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.90 | 38.44 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 120 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has 50% lower power consumption.
RX 6650M XT, on the other hand, has a 76% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 13% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6650M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile 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.
