Radeon RX 7650 GRE vs RX 580 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 Mobile with Radeon RX 7650 GRE, including specs and performance data.
7650 GRE outperforms 580 Mobile by a whopping 138% 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 | 350 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.27 | 93.92 |
| Power efficiency | 14.11 | 20.36 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | Navi 33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) | February 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $301.69 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 7650 GRE has 1036% better value for money than RX 580 Mobile.
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 cores | 2304 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1077 MHz | 2695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 13,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.1 | 345.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.963 TFLOPS | 22.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 144 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 204 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 288.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 77
−57.2%
| 180−190 |
| 4K | 30 | 70−75
+133%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.92 | 1.55
+60.4%
|
| 4K | 10.06 | 3.99
+60.4%
|
- RX 7650 GRE has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7650 GRE has 60% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 240−250
+131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45 | 95−100
+132%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 180−190
+134%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 240−250
+131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 140−150
+130%
|
| Fortnite | 183 | 400−450
+119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69 | 160−170
+132%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+116%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 110−120
+124%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 180−190
+134%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 240−250
+131%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230 | 500−550
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Dota 2 | 76 | 180−190
+137%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 140−150
+130%
|
| Fortnite | 81 | 190−200
+135%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62 | 140−150
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 95−100
+138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57 | 130−140
+128%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68 | 160−170
+135%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+116%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 180−190
+134%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 90−95
+131%
|
| Dota 2 | 69 | 160−170
+132%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 140−150
+130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 170−180
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41 | 95−100
+132%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37 | 85−90
+130%
|
| Valorant | 130−140 | 300−310
+116%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60 | 140−150
+133%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 85−90
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140 | 300−310
+124%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 75−80
+134%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 55−60
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 350−400
+112%
|
| Valorant | 160−170 | 350−400
+117%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 120−130
+126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 40−45
+135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 95−100
+132%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 100−105
+117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 65−70
+132%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 100−105
+133%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 35−40
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 35−40
+119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 75−80
+127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 35−40
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24 | 55−60
+129%
|
| Valorant | 95−100 | 220−230
+129%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 65−70
+132%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 35−40
+119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 16−18
+129%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 150−160
+134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 45−50
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 75−80
+134%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14 | 30−33
+114%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 45−50
+137%
|
This is how RX 580 Mobile and RX 7650 GRE compete in popular games:
- RX 7650 GRE is 134% faster in 1080p
- RX 7650 GRE is 133% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.13 | 43.16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 165 Watt |
RX 580 Mobile has 39% lower power consumption.
RX 7650 GRE, on the other hand, has a 138% higher aggregate performance score, and a 57% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7650 GRE is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 580 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 7650 GRE 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.
