Radeon RX 6650 XT vs Quadro RTX 6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 6000 with Radeon RX 6650 XT, including specs and performance data.

RTX 6000
2018, $6,299
24 GB GDDR6, 260 Watt
42.43
+3.8%

RTX 6000 outperforms 6650 XT by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking104115
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.0453.35
Power efficiency12.7118.08
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameTU102Navi 23
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date13 August 2018 (8 years ago)10 May 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$6,299 $399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6650 XT has 2515% better value for money than RTX 6000.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores46082048
Core clock speed1440 MHz2055 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHz2635 MHz
Number of transistors18,600 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)260 Watt176 Watt
Texture fill rate509.8337.3
Floating-point processing power16.31 TFLOPS10.79 TFLOPS
ROPs9664
TMUs288128
Tensor Cores576no data
Ray Tracing Cores7232
L0 Cacheno data512 KB
L1 Cache4.5 MB512 KB
L2 Cache6 MB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 8-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount24 GB8 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2190 MHz
Memory bandwidth672.0 GB/s280.3 GB/s
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 Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-
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.

RTX 6000 42.43
+3.8%
RX 6650 XT 40.87

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.

RTX 6000 17753
+3.8%
Samples: 297
RX 6650 XT 17098
Samples: 5373

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 HD140−150
+1.4%
138
1440p70−75
+1.4%
69
4K35−4036
+2.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p44.992.89
+93.6%
1440p89.995.78
+93.6%
4K179.9711.08
+93.8%
  • RX 6650 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6650 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6650 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 212 212
Counter-Strike 2 346 346
Cyberpunk 2077 128 128

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 153 153
Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 342 342
Cyberpunk 2077 108 108
Far Cry 5 173 173
Fortnite 170−180 170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 160−170
Valorant 240−250 240−250

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 89 89
Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 181 181
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 88 88
Dota 2 171 171
Far Cry 5 163 163
Far Cry 6 143 143
Fortnite 170−180 170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
Grand Theft Auto V 147 147
Metro Exodus 102 102
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 160−170
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 182 182
Valorant 240−250 240−250

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78
Dota 2 136 136
Far Cry 5 151 151
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 160−170
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 107 107
Valorant 240−250 240−250

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180 170−180

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 108 108
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 290−300 290−300
Far Cry 6 78 78
Grand Theft Auto V 77 77
Metro Exodus 58 58
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 270−280 270−280

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Cyberpunk 2077 44 44
Far Cry 5 114 114
Forza Horizon 4 120−130 120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85 80−85

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 110−120 110−120

4K
High

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Counter-Strike 2 27 27
Far Cry 6 8 8
Grand Theft Auto V 72 72
Metro Exodus 37 37
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56 56
Valorant 250−260 250−260

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70 65−70
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 18 18
Dota 2 97 97
Far Cry 5 55 55
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 80−85
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60

4K
Epic

Fortnite 55−60 55−60

This is how RTX 6000 and RX 6650 XT compete in popular games:

  • RTX 6000 is 1% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 6000 is 1% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6650 XT is 3% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 42.43 40.87
Recency 13 August 2018 10 May 2022
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 260 Watt 176 Watt

RTX 6000 has a 4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 6650 XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42% more advanced lithography process, and 32% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 6000 and Radeon RX 6650 XT.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6650 XT 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 148 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 4238 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6650 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 6000 or Radeon RX 6650 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.