Radeon HD 6650M vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregated performance score
Radeon HD 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 882 | 857 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.15 | 0.36 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GS1 | Whistler-PRO |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Current price | $230 | $53 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 6650M has 140% better value for money than GTS 160M.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 480 |
| CUDA cores | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 19 billion/sec | 14.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | 576.0 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon HD 6650M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and Outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon HD 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon HD 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 11% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon HD 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 2% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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:
| 900p | 16−18
−18.8%
| 19
+18.8%
|
| Full HD | 16−18
−12.5%
| 18
+12.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTS 160M and HD 6650M compete in popular games:
- HD 6650M is 18.8% faster than GTS 160M in 900p
- HD 6650M is 12.5% faster than GTS 160M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6650M is 100% faster than the GTS 160M.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6650M is ahead in 13 tests (32%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (68%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.75 | 1.95 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 4 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
The Radeon HD 6650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
