ATI Radeon X1650 vs GeForce 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 820M with Radeon X1650, including specs and performance data.
820M outperforms X1650 by a whopping 581% 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 | 1104 | 1466 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.89 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | RV516 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 20 November 2007 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 635 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 2.540 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 392 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 6.272 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x 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.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | - |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 16
+700%
| 2−3
−700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GeForce 820M and ATI X1650 compete in popular games:
- GeForce 820M is 700% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 27 November 2013 | 20 November 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
GeForce 820M has a 581.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 820M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X1650 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.
