Radeon PRO W7700 vs HD 8650G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8650G with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7700 outperforms HD 8650G by a whopping 4345% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1029 | 39 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 77.23 |
| Power efficiency | 2.66 | 21.81 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 533 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.28 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.553 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 24 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 576.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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
−4312%
| 750−800
+4312%
|
| 1440p | 21
−4186%
| 900−950
+4186%
|
| 4K | 9
−4344%
| 400−450
+4344%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 1.11 |
| 4K | no data | 2.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−4344%
|
400−450
+4344%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−4312%
|
1500−1550
+4312%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
−4305%
|
1850−1900
+4305%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−4312%
|
750−800
+4312%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−4344%
|
400−450
+4344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4233%
|
260−270
+4233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−4312%
|
1500−1550
+4312%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
−4275%
|
700−750
+4275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−4344%
|
400−450
+4344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4233%
|
260−270
+4233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−4312%
|
1500−1550
+4312%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4300%
|
220−230
+4300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−4233%
|
650−700
+4233%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
This is how HD 8650G and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7700 is 4312% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7700 is 4186% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7700 is 4344% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 60.45 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 13 November 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 190 Watt |
HD 8650G has 442.9% lower power consumption.
PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 4344.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8650G is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
