Radeon RX 6650M vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	301	117
Place by popularity	68	not in top-100
Power efficiency	25.54	22.44
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	TU117	Navi 23
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	4 January 2022 (3 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	1024	1792
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	2068 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	2416 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	270.6
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	8.659 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	64	112
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	28

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
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	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	256.0 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.3
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

RX 6650M 39.02
+111%

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

RX 6650M 15004
+111%

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 13132

RX 6650M 32846
+150%

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

RX 6650M 25739
+176%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Mobile 3488

RX 6650M 8700
+149%

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 −96.6%	116 +96.6%
1440p	36 −108%	75−80 +108%
4K	23 −95.7%	45−50 +95.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	38 −113%	80−85 +113%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 −144%	127 +144%
Elden Ring	47 −46.8%	69 +46.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 −57.6%	100−110 +57.6%
Counter-Strike 2	33 −145%	80−85 +145%
Cyberpunk 2077	35 −51.4%	53 +51.4%
Forza Horizon 4	79 −181%	222 +181%
Metro Exodus	55 −70.9%	90−95 +70.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 −8.5%	75−80 +8.5%
Valorant	83 −88%	150−160 +88%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	72 −44.4%	100−110 +44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	27 −200%	80−85 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 −39.3%	39 +39.3%
Dota 2	72 +84.6%	39 −84.6%
Elden Ring	65 −111%	130−140 +111%
Far Cry 5	62 +34.8%	46 −34.8%
Fortnite	95−100 −72.7%	170−180 +72.7%
Forza Horizon 4	64 −197%	190 +197%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 −107%	120−130 +107%
Metro Exodus	40 +21.2%	33 −21.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	165 −21.2%	200−210 +21.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 −185%	75−80 +185%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −138%	130−140 +138%
Valorant	47 −232%	150−160 +232%
World of Tanks	130 −115%	270−280 +115%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 −85.7%	100−110 +85.7%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −145%	80−85 +145%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 −28%	32 +28%
Dota 2	89 −12.4%	100 +12.4%
Far Cry 5	73 −32.9%	95−100 +32.9%
Forza Horizon 4	55 −204%	167 +204%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −57.5%	200−210 +57.5%
Valorant	75−80 −108%	150−160 +108%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −148%	70−75 +148%
Elden Ring	30−33 −163%	75−80 +163%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −148%	70−75 +148%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −4.8%	170−180 +4.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −129%	35−40 +129%
World of Tanks	120−130 −94.5%	240−250 +94.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	37 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −160%	35−40 +160%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 −160%	35−40 +160%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −163%	120−130 +163%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −140%	110−120 +140%
Metro Exodus	39 −118%	85−90 +118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −172%	65−70 +172%
Valorant	45−50 −160%	120−130 +160%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −167%	40−45 +167%
Dota 2	30−35 −148%	75−80 +148%
Elden Ring	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −148%	75−80 +148%
Metro Exodus	12 −175%	30−35 +175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 −168%	120−130 +168%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −108%	24−27 +108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −148%	75−80 +148%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 −165%	45−50 +165%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −167%	40−45 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 −183%	16−18 +183%
Dota 2	45 −71.1%	75−80 +71.1%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −142%	55−60 +142%
Fortnite	23 −139%	55−60 +139%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −137%	60−65 +137%
Valorant	21−24 −205%	60−65 +205%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and RX 6650M compete in popular games:

RX 6650M is 97% faster in 1080p
RX 6650M is 108% faster in 1440p
RX 6650M is 96% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 85% faster.
in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M is 232% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
RX 6650M is ahead in 60 tests (95%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.51	39.02
Recency	15 April 2020	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has 140% lower power consumption.

RX 6650M, on the other hand, has a 110.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile in performance tests.

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