Radeon HD 7650A vs Quadro FX 3800M

Place in performance ranking	928	935
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	0.09	0.23
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	N10E-GLM4	Onega
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	20 December 2009 (14 years ago)	5 January 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$262
Current price	$199	$46 (0.2x MSRP)

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 7650A has 156% better value for money than FX 3800M.

Detailed Specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	128	480
Core clock speed	675 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	716 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.20	14.40
Floating-point performance	422.4 gflops	576.0 gflops

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 3800M and Radeon HD 7650A compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
Width	no data	MXM Module

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	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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

API Compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	+	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 3800M 1.51
+2%

HD 7650A 1.48

Quadro FX 3800M outperforms Radeon HD 7650A by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

FX 3800M 585
+2.3%

HD 7650A 572

Quadro FX 3800M outperforms Radeon HD 7650A by 2% in Passmark.

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

34
+13.3%

30−35

−13.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1