ATI Radeon X1650 SE vs UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs with Radeon X1650 SE, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
2021
3.99
+2247%

Graphics 750 32EUs outperforms X1650 SE by a whopping 2247% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7551490
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.49
ArchitectureGen. 12 (2021−2023)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeRV515
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2021 (5 years ago)2007 (19 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 cores32no data
Core clock speed350 MHz635 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data107 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data27 Watt
Texture fill rateno data2.540
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR2
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MBps
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX 12_19.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD160−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18 0−1
Far Cry 5 14 0−1
Fortnite 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
Valorant 50−55
+2600%
2−3
−2600%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+2300%
3−4
−2300%
Dota 2 34
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Far Cry 5 13 0−1
Fortnite 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 13 0−1
Metro Exodus 6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Valorant 50−55
+2600%
2−3
−2600%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 15 0−1
Dota 2 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Far Cry 5 12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18 0−1
Valorant 18−20 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.99 0.17
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs has a 2247% higher aggregate performance score, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 SE in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X1650 SE 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.


4 15 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon X1650 SE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs or Radeon X1650 SE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.