Radeon HD 6650A vs HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics and Radeon HD 6650A, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics
2013
1.85

HD 6650A outperforms HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking960934
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.42
Architectureno dataTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameno dataOnega
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 August 2013 (12 years ago)19 April 2011 (14 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 cores768480
Core clock speed720 / 650 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data716 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data45 Watt
Texture fill rateno data14.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.576 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24
L1 Cacheno data48 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataMXM-A (3.0)

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 - 2000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1111.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Valorant 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 31
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics and HD 6650A compete in popular games:

  • HD 6650A is 8% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.85 2.00
Recency 1 August 2013 19 April 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6650A, on the other hand, has a 8% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics and Radeon HD 6650A.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8650G HD 8570M Dual Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 4 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6650A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics or Radeon HD 6650A, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.