Radeon RX 6650 XT vs Quadro FX 350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 350M with Radeon RX 6650 XT, including specs and performance data.
6650 XT outperforms 350M by a whopping 40710% 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 | 1507 | 109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 58.25 |
| Power efficiency | 0.51 | 17.88 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G72 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 March 2006 (19 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
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 | 7 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 2055 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 450 MHz | 2635 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 112 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 176 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.800 | 337.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.79 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 4 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | 256 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 450 MHz | 2190 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 280.3 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 138 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 69 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 36 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.89 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.78 |
| 4K | no data | 11.08 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 128 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 108 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5200%
|
150−160
+5200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−888%
|
230−240
+888%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−2680%
|
270−280
+2680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 88 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−2038%
|
171
+2038%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5200%
|
150−160
+5200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3540%
|
182
+3540%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−888%
|
230−240
+888%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 78 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1600%
|
136
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5200%
|
150−160
+5200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2040%
|
107
+2040%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−888%
|
230−240
+888%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−5300%
|
108
+5300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−9700%
|
95−100
+9700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−11900%
|
120−130
+11900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−7900%
|
80−85
+7900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−414%
|
72
+414%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−25000%
|
250−260
+25000%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−5700%
|
55−60
+5700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 346
+0%
|
346
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 342
+0%
|
342
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180
+0%
|
180
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 151
+0%
|
151
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650 XT is 25000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6650 XT performs better in 23 tests (38%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (62%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.10 | 40.81 |
| Recency | 13 March 2006 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 176 Watt |
FX 350M has 1073.3% lower power consumption.
RX 6650 XT, on the other hand, has a 40710% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6650 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 350M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6650 XT 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.
