GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs Radeon RX 5500 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5500 XT and GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
5500 XT outperforms 650 Ti Boost by a whopping 166% 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 | 290 | 549 |
| Place by popularity | 94 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.63 | 2.94 |
| Power efficiency | 12.83 | 4.67 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | GK106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 December 2019 (5 years ago) | 26 March 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | $169 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5500 XT has 1146% better value for money than GTX 650 Ti Boost.
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 | 1408 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1845 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 134 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 162.4 | 66.05 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.196 TFLOPS | 1.585 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 88 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 384 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 | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 180 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 Displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| 3D Vision Live | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 76
+181%
| 27−30
−181%
|
| 1440p | 42
+200%
| 14−16
−200%
|
| 4K | 24
+167%
| 9−10
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.22
+181%
| 6.26
−181%
|
| 1440p | 4.02
+200%
| 12.07
−200%
|
| 4K | 7.04
+167%
| 18.78
−167%
|
- RX 5500 XT has 181% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5500 XT has 200% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5500 XT has 167% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 254
+167%
|
95−100
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 196
+180%
|
70−75
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+190%
|
21−24
−190%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+200%
|
35−40
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+180%
|
40−45
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 109
+173%
|
40−45
−173%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+187%
|
55−60
−187%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98
+180%
|
35−40
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+176%
|
90−95
−176%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Dota 2 | 149
+171%
|
55−60
−171%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+180%
|
40−45
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+169%
|
35−40
−169%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+169%
|
35−40
−169%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+171%
|
35−40
−171%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+187%
|
55−60
−187%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Dota 2 | 143
+186%
|
50−55
−186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+197%
|
30−33
−197%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+176%
|
21−24
−176%
|
| Valorant | 114
+185%
|
40−45
−185%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+180%
|
40−45
−180%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+187%
|
55−60
−187%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+179%
|
70−75
−179%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+184%
|
45−50
−184%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
This is how RX 5500 XT and GTX 650 Ti Boost compete in popular games:
- RX 5500 XT is 181% faster in 1080p
- RX 5500 XT is 200% faster in 1440p
- RX 5500 XT is 167% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.70 | 8.15 |
| Recency | 12 December 2019 | 26 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 134 Watt |
RX 5500 XT has a 166.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 3.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 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.
