ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 vs HD 7560D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7560D with Mobility Radeon HD 3650, including specs and performance data.
HD 7560D outperforms Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 238% 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 | 1134 | 1372 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.09 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.28 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | M86 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 7 January 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $101 | no data |
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 | 256 | 120 |
| Core clock speed | 760 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 378 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.16 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3891 TFLOPS | 0.12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | MXM-II |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 18
+260%
| 5−6
−260%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.61 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+23.1%
|
24−27
−23.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+23.1%
|
24−27
−23.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+23.1%
|
24−27
−23.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 7560D and ATI Mobility HD 3650 compete in popular games:
- HD 7560D is 260% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7560D is 267% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7560D performs better in 28 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.08 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 7 January 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
HD 7560D has a 237.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 71.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 3650, on the other hand, has 116.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7560D is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7560D is a desktop graphics card while Mobility Radeon HD 3650 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
