Radeon HD 8650M vs R8 M365DX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R8 M365DX and Radeon HD 8650M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8650M outperforms R8 M365DX by a significant 20% 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 | 1003 | 950 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | Meso | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 7 January 2013 (12 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 | 900 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1125 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 900 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 27.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.864 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 4500 MHz |
| 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 outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 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 | 14
−14.3%
| 16−18
+14.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.6%
|
35−40
+5.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 44
+12.8%
|
35−40
−12.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.6%
|
35−40
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−5.6%
|
35−40
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| 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 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R8 M365DX and HD 8650M compete in popular games:
- HD 8650M is 14% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R8 M365DX is 13% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 8650M is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R8 M365DX performs better in 1 test (2%)
- HD 8650M performs better in 45 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.53 | 1.83 |
| Recency | 3 June 2015 | 7 January 2013 |
R8 M365DX has an age advantage of 2 years.
HD 8650M, on the other hand, has a 19.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon HD 8650M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R8 M365DX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
