HD Graphics 6000 vs Radeon HD 8650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8650M and HD Graphics 6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 6000 outperforms HD 8650M by a small 9% 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 | 933 | 907 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 10.15 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | no data | Broadwell GT3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 5 September 2014 (10 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 | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 900 Million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 6 |
| TMUs | 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 | no data | Ring Bus |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
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 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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.4%
|
35−40
+5.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−5.1%
|
40−45
+5.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
17
−23.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.4%
|
35−40
+5.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+40%
|
15
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.4%
|
35−40
+5.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8650M and HD Graphics 6000 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 6000 is 25% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8650M is 40% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD Graphics 6000 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8650M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- HD Graphics 6000 is ahead in 22 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 26 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.84 | 2.00 |
| Recency | 7 January 2013 | 5 September 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
HD Graphics 6000 has a 8.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8650M and HD Graphics 6000.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
