Radeon RX 6650M vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Radeon RX 6650M, including specs and performance data.
RX 6650M outperforms GTS 450 by a whopping 1031% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 692 | 107 |
| Place by popularity | 87 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.32 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
| Current price | $127 (1x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 | 1792 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2222 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.1 billion/sec | 270.6 |
| Floating-point performance | 601.3 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTS 450 and Radeon RX 6650M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 8.25" (210 mm) (21 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 18000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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 RX 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 1031% based on our aggregate 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 RX 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 1032% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon RX 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 1640% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 6650M outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 1566% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 28
−971%
| 300−350
+971%
|
| Full HD | 40
−185%
| 114
+185%
|
| 1200p | 27
−1011%
| 300−350
+1011%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2017%
|
127
+2017%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1686%
|
120−130
+1686%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−875%
|
75−80
+875%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1667%
|
106
+1667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1100%
|
80−85
+1100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−967%
|
95−100
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−887%
|
140−150
+887%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−685%
|
150−160
+685%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−933%
|
90−95
+933%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−1608%
|
222
+1608%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−478%
|
104
+478%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1686%
|
120−130
+1686%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−875%
|
75−80
+875%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1217%
|
79
+1217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1100%
|
80−85
+1100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−967%
|
95−100
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−887%
|
140−150
+887%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−685%
|
150−160
+685%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−933%
|
90−95
+933%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−1362%
|
190
+1362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1988%
|
167
+1988%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−433%
|
95−100
+433%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−875%
|
75−80
+875%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1100%
|
80−85
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−887%
|
140−150
+887%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−685%
|
150−160
+685%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−1185%
|
167
+1185%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1025%
|
90
+1025%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−244%
|
62
+244%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−933%
|
90−95
+933%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1133%
|
70−75
+1133%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1300%
|
40−45
+1300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−883%
|
55−60
+883%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1520%
|
80−85
+1520%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−950%
|
80−85
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−857%
|
65−70
+857%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 30−33 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5300%
|
50−55
+5300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−1333%
|
40−45
+1333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1100%
|
70−75
+1100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1050%
|
45−50
+1050%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
This is how GTS 450 and RX 6650M compete in popular games:
- RX 6650M is 971% faster in 900p
- RX 6650M is 185% faster in 1080p
- RX 6650M is 1011% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6650M is 6600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6650M surpassed GTS 450 in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.42 | 38.67 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 120 Watt |
The Radeon RX 6650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6650M is a notebook one.
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.
