Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition with Radeon Pro Vega 48, including specs and performance data.

GT 650M Mac Edition
2012
512 MB GDDR5, 45 Watt
1.44

Pro 48 outperforms 650M Mac Edition by a whopping 1772% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1037241
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.46no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Vega 10
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date12 July 2012 (13 years ago)19 March 2019 (7 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 cores3843072
Core clock speed900 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1300 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate28.80249.6
Floating-point processing power0.6912 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs32192
L1 Cache32 KB768 KB
L2 Cache256 KB4 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 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1254 MHz786 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.26 GB/s402.4 GB/s

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 outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.125
CUDA3.0-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 26.95
Recency 12 July 2012 19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

Pro Vega 48 has a 1772% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 48 is a mobile workstation 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.


2.5 22 votes

Rate GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 79 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 48 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition or Radeon Pro Vega 48, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.