Radeon HD 6250 vs HD 8650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8650M with Radeon HD 6250, including specs and performance data.
HD 8650M outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 741% 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 | 948 | 1431 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.89 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | no data | Cedar |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 31 January 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 cores | 384 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 900 Million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8 GB/s |
| 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| 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 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 | 50−55
+733%
| 6
−733%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD 8650M and HD 6250 compete in popular games:
- HD 8650M is 733% 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 8650M is 850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8650M performs better in 26 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.85 | 0.22 |
| Recency | 7 January 2013 | 31 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
HD 8650M has a 740.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% 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 6250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8650M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6250 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
