ATI Radeon X1650 vs HD Graphics 2500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2500 and Radeon X1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 2500
2012
0.69
+283%

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11751397
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1RV516
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)20 November 2007 (17 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed650 MHz635 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknownno data
Texture fill rate6.9002.540
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPSno data
ROPs14
TMUs64

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 1.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedDDR2
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared392 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data6.272 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.02.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.80N/A

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 HD7
+600%
1−2
−600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 2500 and ATI X1650 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2500 is 600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.18
Recency 1 April 2012 20 November 2007
Chip lithography 22 nm 80 nm

HD Graphics 2500 has a 283.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 263.6% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 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.


Intel HD Graphics 2500
HD Graphics 2500
ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 1414 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 65 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 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.