Radeon HD 7950 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	303	404
Place by popularity	68	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	2.48
Power efficiency	25.53	4.28
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	TU117	Tahiti
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	31 January 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024	1792
Compute units	no data	28
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	1250 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	200 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	89.60
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	2.867 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	112

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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0 x16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 6-pin

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	240 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
ZeroCore	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 11
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.140	-
CUDA	7.5	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.51
+49.3%

HD 7950 12.40

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116
+49.4%

HD 7950 4764

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 9313
+24.2%

HD 7950 7500

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	59 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
1440p	36 +50%	24−27 −50%
4K	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	12.83
1440p	no data	18.71
4K	no data	32.07

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	38 +58.3%	24−27 −58.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +73.3%	30−33 −73.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +65%	40−45 −65%
Counter-Strike 2	32 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	35 +66.7%	21−24 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	79 +58%	50−55 −58%
Forza Horizon 5	60 +50%	40−45 −50%
Metro Exodus	55 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +57.8%	45−50 −57.8%
Valorant	83 +50.9%	55−60 −50.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +60%	45−50 −60%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +50%	18−20 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Dota 2	72 +60%	45−50 −60%
Far Cry 5	62 +55%	40−45 −55%
Fortnite	95−100 +52.3%	65−70 −52.3%
Forza Horizon 4	64 +60%	40−45 −60%
Forza Horizon 5	34 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Metro Exodus	40 +66.7%	24−27 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	165 +50%	110−120 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +50%	18−20 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +65.7%	35−40 −65.7%
Valorant	47 +56.7%	30−33 −56.7%
World of Tanks	130 +52.9%	85−90 −52.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +60%	35−40 −60%
Counter-Strike 2	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Dota 2	89 +61.8%	55−60 −61.8%
Far Cry 5	73 +62.2%	45−50 −62.2%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +62.5%	24−27 −62.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +49.4%	85−90 −49.4%
Valorant	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +51.8%	110−120 −51.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
World of Tanks	120−130 +49.4%	85−90 −49.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	37 +54.2%	24−27 −54.2%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +56.7%	30−33 −56.7%
Forza Horizon 5	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
Metro Exodus	39 +62.5%	24−27 −62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Valorant	45−50 +56.7%	30−33 −56.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Dota 2	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%
Metro Exodus	12 +50%	8−9 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +56.7%	30−33 −56.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Dota 2	45 +50%	30−33 −50%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Fortnite	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +50%	18−20 −50%
Forza Horizon 5	13 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Valorant	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and HD 7950 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 69% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 50% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 64% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.51	12.40
Recency	15 April 2020	31 January 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	200 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 49.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7950 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon HD 7950 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.