GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
R9 Fury outperforms 650M Mac Edition by a whopping 1480% 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 | 275 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.37 | 2.46 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (10 years ago) | 12 July 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3584 | 384 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 224 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1254 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 80.26 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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 | 90
+1700%
| 5−6
−1700%
|
| 1440p | 106
+1667%
| 6−7
−1667%
|
| 4K | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.10 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.18 | no data |
| 4K | 11.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1550%
|
8−9
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50−55
+1700%
|
3−4
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+1760%
|
5−6
−1760%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1550%
|
8−9
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
4−5
−1775%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+1557%
|
7−8
−1557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1520%
|
10−11
−1520%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+1760%
|
5−6
−1760%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1550%
|
8−9
−1550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268
+1575%
|
16−18
−1575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1614%
|
7−8
−1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
4−5
−1775%
|
| Fortnite | 95
+1483%
|
6−7
−1483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1520%
|
10−11
−1520%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+1760%
|
5−6
−1760%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+1525%
|
8−9
−1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
4−5
−1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1520%
|
10−11
−1520%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 72
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158
+1480%
|
10−11
−1480%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1640%
|
10−11
−1640%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+1567%
|
12−14
−1567%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109
+1717%
|
6−7
−1717%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1600%
|
8−9
−1600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 102
+1600%
|
6−7
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
This is how R9 Fury and GT 650M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 1700% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 1667% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 1500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.75 | 1.44 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 12 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 45 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 1480% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 650M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 511% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
