Radeon RX 6650M XT vs GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile and Radeon RX 6650M XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 140 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.93 | 24.95 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GA104 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 January 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 | 6144 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1110 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 2416 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,400 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 309.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 18.98 TFLOPS | 9.896 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | 192 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 6 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | 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 | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 114
+3.6%
| 110−120 |
| 1440p | 73
+4.3%
| 70−75 |
| 4K | 43
+7.5%
| 40−45 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 179
+53%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 212 | 210−220
+1.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 121
+33%
|
90−95 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 140
+33.3%
|
100−110 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 140
+19.7%
|
110−120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 205 | 210−220
+4.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 96
+5.5%
|
90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 129
+3.2%
|
120−130 |
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 160−170
+0.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 194
+29.3%
|
150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 85 | 110−120
+37.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+5.3%
|
130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 156 | 210−220
+37.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 84 | 90−95
+8.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 134 | 140−150
+7.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 122 | 120−130
+2.5%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 160−170
+0.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 188
+25.3%
|
150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 131
+1.6%
|
120−130 |
| Metro Exodus | 100
+7.5%
|
90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 191
+36.4%
|
140−150 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+0.8%
|
130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76 | 90−95
+19.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 128 | 140−150
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114 | 120−130
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157
+4.7%
|
150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 106 | 140−150
+32.1%
|
| Valorant | 179 | 230−240
+29.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 160−170
+0.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+2%
|
95−100 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280
+0.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+16%
|
80−85 |
| Metro Exodus | 58
+1.8%
|
55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 260−270 | 260−270
+0.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+8%
|
100−105 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 48
+6.7%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+8.4%
|
95−100 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+17.1%
|
110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+5.3%
|
75−80 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 100−110
+1%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31 | 45−50
+48.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 93
+8.1%
|
85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 37
+2.8%
|
35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70
+12.9%
|
60−65 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240
+0.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 67
+8.1%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+9.5%
|
21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 110 | 110−120
+0.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+5.8%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+17.6%
|
70−75 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55 | 50−55 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
This is how RTX 3080 Mobile and RX 6650M XT compete in popular games:
- RTX 3080 Mobile is 4% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3080 Mobile is 4% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3080 Mobile is 8% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3080 Mobile is 53% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 48% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3080 Mobile performs better in 29 tests (47%)
- RX 6650M XT performs better in 22 tests (35%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.29 | 38.44 |
| Recency | 12 January 2021 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 120 Watt |
RTX 3080 Mobile has 4% lower power consumption.
RX 6650M XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and a 13% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile and Radeon RX 6650M XT.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
