Radeon RX 6650M XT vs GeForce RTX 2070

Place in the ranking	96	84
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	32.73	no data
Power efficiency	16.50	25.44
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	TU106	Navi 23
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 October 2018 (6 years ago)	4 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	2304	2048
Core clock speed	1410 MHz	2068 MHz
Boost clock speed	1620 MHz	2416 MHz
Number of transistors	10,800 million	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	233.3	309.2
Floating-point processing power	7.465 TFLOPS	9.896 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	144	128
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	32

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	448.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

RTX 2070 40.88

RX 6650M XT 43.23
+5.7%

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.

RTX 2070 16142

RX 6650M XT 17070
+5.7%

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	129 −0.8%	130−140 +0.8%
1440p	88 −2.3%	90−95 +2.3%
4K	62 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.87	no data
1440p	5.67	no data
4K	8.05	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −7.9%	95−100 +7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	90−95 −6.6%	95−100 +6.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90 −23.3%	110−120 +23.3%
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −7.9%	95−100 +7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 −116%	95−100 +116%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 −7.2%	220−230 +7.2%
Forza Horizon 5	100−110 −5.6%	110−120 +5.6%
Metro Exodus	103 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	110 +29.4%	85−90 −29.4%
Valorant	208 +15.6%	180−190 −15.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	160 +44.1%	110−120 −44.1%
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −7.9%	95−100 +7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	37 −162%	95−100 +162%
Dota 2	130 −2.3%	130−140 +2.3%
Far Cry 5	93 −11.8%	100−110 +11.8%
Fortnite	166 −12.7%	180−190 +12.7%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 −7.2%	220−230 +7.2%
Forza Horizon 5	100−110 −5.6%	110−120 +5.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	127 −4.7%	130−140 +4.7%
Metro Exodus	80 −28.8%	100−110 +28.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	245 +17.2%	200−210 −17.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65 −30.8%	85−90 +30.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	150−160 −7.3%	160−170 +7.3%
Valorant	125 −44%	180−190 +44%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	79 −40.5%	110−120 +40.5%
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −7.9%	95−100 +7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 −203%	95−100 +203%
Dota 2	130 −2.3%	130−140 +2.3%
Far Cry 5	100−110 −3%	100−110 +3%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 −7.2%	220−230 +7.2%
Forza Horizon 5	100−110 −5.6%	110−120 +5.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	132 −58.3%	200−210 +58.3%
Valorant	184 +2.2%	180−190 −2.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	75−80 −6.3%	80−85 +6.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 −6.3%	80−85 +6.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	42 −9.5%	45−50 +9.5%
World of Tanks	260−270 −5.6%	280−290 +5.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	76 −2.6%	75−80 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 −129%	45−50 +129%
Far Cry 5	130−140 −5.1%	140−150 +5.1%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −8.1%	130−140 +8.1%
Forza Horizon 5	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Metro Exodus	82 −14.6%	90−95 +14.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 −8%	80−85 +8%
Valorant	127 −15.7%	140−150 +15.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Dota 2	86 −5.8%	90−95 +5.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	86 −5.8%	90−95 +5.8%
Metro Exodus	32 −18.8%	35−40 +18.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	128 −14.8%	140−150 +14.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	86 −5.8%	90−95 +5.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	48 −10.4%	50−55 +10.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −110%	21−24 +110%
Dota 2	116 +27.5%	90−95 −27.5%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −7.8%	65−70 +7.8%
Fortnite	60−65 −8.2%	65−70 +8.2%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 −7.1%	75−80 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −7.5%	40−45 +7.5%
Valorant	68 −16.2%	75−80 +16.2%

This is how RTX 2070 and RX 6650M XT compete in popular games:

RX 6650M XT is 1% faster in 1080p
RX 6650M XT is 2% faster in 1440p
RX 6650M XT is 5% faster in 4K

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

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 2070 is 44% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 203% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 2070 is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
RX 6650M XT is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	40.88	43.23
Recency	17 October 2018	4 January 2022
Chip lithography	12 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	120 Watt

RX 6650M XT has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 45.8% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce RTX 2070 and Radeon RX 6650M XT.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6650M XT is a notebook one.

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