RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3650 with RTX 6000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 19947% 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 | 1355 | 23 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.25 |
| Power efficiency | 0.87 | 17.48 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | M86 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2008 (18 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 378 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.12 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 192 |
| TMUs | 8 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 17.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 96 MB |
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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 0−1 | 185 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 161 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 108 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 36.75 |
| 1440p | no data | 42.23 |
| 4K | no data | 62.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2386%
|
170−180
+2386%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1435%
|
350−400
+1435%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1893%
|
270−280
+1893%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−19900%
|
2000−2050
+19900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2386%
|
170−180
+2386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−9680%
|
489
+9680%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1435%
|
350−400
+1435%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−19900%
|
2000−2050
+19900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2386%
|
170−180
+2386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5100%
|
260
+5100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1435%
|
350−400
+1435%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−7067%
|
210−220
+7067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−51500%
|
500−550
+51500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−23900%
|
240−250
+23900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−21800%
|
219
+21800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1093%
|
160−170
+1093%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−16350%
|
300−350
+16350%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−9500%
|
95−100
+9500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 51500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation performs better in 29 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 68.16 |
| Recency | 7 January 2008 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 300 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3650 has 900% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 19947.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 3650 is a notebook graphics card while RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
