GeForce GT 650M SLI vs Radeon RX 5500 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5500 XT with GeForce GT 650M SLI, including specs and performance data.
RX 5500 XT outperforms GT 650M SLI by a whopping 366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 252 | 645 |
| Place by popularity | 80 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 43.23 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.46 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | N13E-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 December 2019 (5 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1408 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1845 MHz | 835 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 162.4 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.196 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 88 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 180 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2x2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2x 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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:
| 900p | 350−400
+343%
| 79
−343%
|
| Full HD | 76
+52%
| 50
−52%
|
| 1440p | 42
+367%
| 9−10
−367%
|
| 4K | 24
+380%
| 5−6
−380%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.22 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.02 | no data |
| 4K | 7.04 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 98
+717%
|
12−14
−717%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 254
+1170%
|
20−22
−1170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+680%
|
10−11
−680%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 75
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+289%
|
18−20
−289%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 196
+880%
|
20−22
−880%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+510%
|
10−11
−510%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+708%
|
12−14
−708%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+300%
|
27−30
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78
+255%
|
21−24
−255%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 109
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+353%
|
18−20
−353%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+166%
|
55−60
−166%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 43
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+274%
|
18−20
−274%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98
+390%
|
20−22
−390%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+78.4%
|
139
−78.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 149
+263%
|
40−45
−263%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+638%
|
12−14
−638%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+300%
|
27−30
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+683%
|
12−14
−683%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+488%
|
16−18
−488%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+478%
|
9−10
−478%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+353%
|
18−20
−353%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+631%
|
12−14
−631%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+166%
|
55−60
−166%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+258%
|
18−20
−258%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 143
+249%
|
40−45
−249%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+585%
|
12−14
−585%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+155%
|
21−24
−155%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+353%
|
18−20
−353%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+346%
|
12−14
−346%
|
| Valorant | 114
+93.2%
|
55−60
−93.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+300%
|
27−30
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+339%
|
35−40
−339%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+412%
|
30−35
−412%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+277%
|
50−55
−277%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+567%
|
9−10
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+273%
|
10−12
−273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+478%
|
9−10
−478%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 120−130
+433%
|
24−27
−433%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
This is how RX 5500 XT and GT 650M SLI compete in popular games:
- RX 5500 XT is 343% faster in 900p
- RX 5500 XT is 52% faster in 1080p
- RX 5500 XT is 367% faster in 1440p
- RX 5500 XT is 380% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 5500 XT is 3400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 5500 XT surpassed GT 650M SLI in all 59 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.38 | 4.37 |
| Recency | 12 December 2019 | 22 March 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
RX 5500 XT has a 366.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5500 XT is a desktop card while GeForce GT 650M SLI 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.
