ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 vs HD 7660D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7660D with Mobility Radeon HD 3650, including specs and performance data.
HD 7660D outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 274% 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 | 1047 | 1307 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.90 | 0.80 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | M86 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 384 | 120 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 378 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6144 TFLOPS | 0.12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
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
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 and SDK compatibility
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 benchmark performance
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 | 17
+325%
| 4−5
−325%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.18 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 54
+286%
|
14−16
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 7660D and ATI Mobility HD 3650 compete in popular games:
- HD 7660D is 325% 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 7660D is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7660D is ahead in 27 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.27 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 7 January 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 30 Watt |
HD 7660D has a 273.5% 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 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7660D is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7660D is a desktop 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.
