ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8650M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9571605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameno dataRS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2013 (13 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 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 cores3842
Core clock speed650 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speedno data180 MHz
Number of transistors900 Million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Texture fill rateno data0.37
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data2

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 dataAGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed4500 MHzSystem Shared
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.17.0
OpenGLno data1.4
OpenCLno dataN/A
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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5 no data
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 no data
Fortnite 8−9 no data
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Valorant 35−40
+65.2%
21−24
−65.2%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5 no data
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+333%
9−10
−333%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 5−6 no data
Fortnite 8−9 no data
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 no data
Metro Exodus 3−4 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Valorant 35−40
+65.2%
21−24
−65.2%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 5−6 no data
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Valorant 35−40
+65.2%
21−24
−65.2%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20 no data
Valorant 12−14 no data

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Far Cry 5 3−4 no data
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 4−5 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8650M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8650M performs better in 18 tests (95%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2013 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

HD 8650M has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8650M and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

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.


3.3 13 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8650M on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8650M or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.