ATI Radeon X1650 SE vs GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 4070 Ti and Radeon X1650 SE, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 4070 Ti
2023
12 GB GDDR6X, 285 Watt
82.68
+45833%

RTX 4070 Ti outperforms ATI X1650 SE by a whopping 45833% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking51403
Place by popularity91not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation48.97no data
Power efficiency20.010.46
ArchitectureAda Lovelace (2022−2024)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameAD104RV515
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date3 January 2023 (2 years ago)2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

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 cores7680no data
Core clock speed2310 MHz635 MHz
Boost clock speed2610 MHzno data
Number of transistors35,800 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology4 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)285 Watt27 Watt
Texture fill rate626.42.540
Floating-point processing power40.09 TFLOPSno data
ROPs804
TMUs2404
Tensor Cores240no data
Ray Tracing Cores60no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length285 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 16-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6XDDR2
Maximum RAM amount12 GB512 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1313 MHz800 MBps
Memory bandwidth504.2 GB/s12.8 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.73.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA8.9-

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 4070 Ti 82.68
+45833%
ATI X1650 SE 0.18

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 4070 Ti 31776
+44655%
ATI X1650 SE 71

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 HD2310−1
1440p150-0−1
4K96-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.46no data
1440p5.33no data
4K8.32no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 190−200 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 236 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 190−200 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 109 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 575
+57400%
1−2
−57400%
Forza Horizon 5 220−230 0−1
Metro Exodus 173 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 150−160 0−1
Valorant 450−500
+49400%
1−2
−49400%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 190−200 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 93 0−1
Dota 2 205 0−1
Far Cry 5 152 0−1
Fortnite 300−350 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 473
+47200%
1−2
−47200%
Forza Horizon 5 220−230 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 178 0−1
Metro Exodus 163 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 150−160 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180 0−1
Valorant 450−500
+49400%
1−2
−49400%
World of Tanks 270−280 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 190−200 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 83 0−1
Dota 2 243 0−1
Far Cry 5 150−160 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 410 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 220−230 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220 0−1
Valorant 450−500
+49400%
1−2
−49400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 156 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 156 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95 0−1
World of Tanks 500−550
+51500%
1−2
−51500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 53 0−1
Far Cry 5 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 280 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 170−180 0−1
Metro Exodus 148 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 190−200 0−1
Valorant 400−450 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 110−120 0−1
Dota 2 172 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 172 0−1
Metro Exodus 84 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 172 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24 0−1
Dota 2 226 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−110 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 140 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 110−120 0−1
Valorant 240−250 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 82.68 0.18
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 4 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 285 Watt 27 Watt

RTX 4070 Ti has a 45833.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2150% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1650 SE, on the other hand, has 955.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 SE in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
ATI Radeon X1650 SE
Radeon X1650 SE

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 7219 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4070 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon X1650 SE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.