ATI Radeon X1650 SE vs HD Graphics 400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 400 with Radeon X1650 SE, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 400 outperforms ATI X1650 SE by a whopping 512% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1123 | 1448 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.21 | 0.48 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Braswell GT1 | RV515 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 April 2015 (10 years ago) | 2007 (18 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 | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 320 MHz | 635 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 27 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 2.540 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 12 | 4 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3L | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 0.17 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 27 Watt |
HD Graphics 400 has a 511.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 400 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X1650 SE is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
