ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 vs Quadro FX 3700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with Mobility Radeon HD 5650, including specs and performance data.
ATI Mobility HD 5650 outperforms FX 3700M by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1074 | 1016 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.09 | 6.41 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Madison |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $925 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 128 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.20 | 9.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.352 TFLOPS | 0.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 20 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-HE | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 25.6 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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:
| 900p | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
| Full HD | 12−14
−33.3%
| 16
+33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 77.08 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−50%
|
39
+50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how FX 3700M and ATI Mobility HD 5650 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5650 is 25% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5650 is 33% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5650 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5650 is ahead in 16 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 21 test (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.14 | 1.34 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5650 has a 17.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 5650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation card while Mobility Radeon HD 5650 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
