GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 with GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, including specs and performance data.
E8950 outperforms GTX 650 Ti Boost by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 367 | 495 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.06 |
| Power efficiency | 10.40 | 4.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GK106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 26 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $169 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 134 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 66.05 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 1.585 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 144.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 Displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| 3D Vision Live | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 8.65 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 26 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 134 Watt |
Radeon E8950 has a 63.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 41.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a desktop one.
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.
