ATI Radeon HD 3200 vs HD 7650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7650M with Radeon HD 3200, including specs and performance data.
HD 7650M outperforms HD 3200 by a whopping 415% 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 | 1142 | 1452 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.96 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Thames | RS780 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 4 March 2008 (17 years 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 | 480 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 494 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 180 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 1.976 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 0.03952 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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) | 10.0 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 18
+500%
| 3−4
−500%
|
| Full HD | 19
+533%
| 3
−533%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| 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
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| 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
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 7650M and ATI HD 3200 compete in popular games:
- HD 7650M is 500% faster in 900p
- HD 7650M is 533% 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 7650M is 450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7650M performs better in 25 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 7 January 2012 | 4 March 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
HD 7650M has a 415% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 7650M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7650M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 3200 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
