GeForce GT 625M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3650 and GeForce GT 625M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 625M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1300 | 1045 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.82 | 5.90 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | M86 | GF117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2008 (17 years ago) | 1 October 2012 (12 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 | 120 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | Up to 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 378 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.12 TFLOPS | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | Up to 14.4 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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−100%
|
27−30
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 625M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 625M is ahead in 30 tests (64%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.36 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 7 January 2008 | 1 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 625M has a 258.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 625M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
