GeForce FX Go5650 vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 and GeForce FX Go5650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
E8950 outperforms FX Go5650 by a whopping 35325% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 369 | 1482 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.22 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | NV31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 March 2003 (21 year 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 | 2048 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 325 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 80 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 1.300 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 4 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | AGP 8x |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 295 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 9.44 GB/s |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.5 (2.1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.17 | 0.04 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 1 March 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
Radeon E8950 has a 35325% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX Go5650 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
