Radeon HD 8650M vs HD 7650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7650M and Radeon HD 8650M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8650M outperforms HD 7650M by an impressive 80% 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 | 950 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.95 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | Thames | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 7 January 2013 (12 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 900 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| 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 data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
−66.7%
| 30−35
+66.7%
|
| Full HD | 19
−57.9%
| 30−35
+57.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−22.6%
|
35−40
+22.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−56%
|
35−40
+56%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−22.6%
|
35−40
+22.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−22.6%
|
35−40
+22.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 12−14 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7650M and HD 8650M compete in popular games:
- HD 8650M is 67% faster in 900p
- HD 8650M is 58% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8650M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8650M performs better in 41 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 1.84 |
| Recency | 7 January 2012 | 7 January 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 8650M has a 80.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8650M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7650M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
