Radeon RX 7900M vs RX 6500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6500M and Radeon RX 7900M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 7900M outperforms RX 6500M by a whopping 205% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 298 | 41 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.07 | 22.95 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 24 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) | 19 October 2023 (1 year 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 | 1024 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2400 MHz | 2090 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,400 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 153.6 | 601.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.915 TFLOPS | 38.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 64 | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 72 |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 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 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 Time Spy Graphics
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 | 61
−144%
| 149
+144%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−209%
| 108
+209%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−213%
| 75
+213%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−257%
|
170−180
+257%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−174%
|
290−300
+174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
−109%
|
130−140
+109%
|
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−257%
|
170−180
+257%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−109%
|
160−170
+109%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−174%
|
290−300
+174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67
−106%
|
130−140
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
−111%
|
150−160
+111%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−155%
|
250−260
+155%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 101
−64.4%
|
160−170
+64.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−153%
|
170−180
+153%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−119%
|
300−350
+119%
|
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−257%
|
170−180
+257%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−109%
|
160−170
+109%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−174%
|
290−300
+174%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−23%
|
270−280
+23%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
−331%
|
130−140
+331%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
−194%
|
300−310
+194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 71
−123%
|
150−160
+123%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−155%
|
250−260
+155%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 81
−105%
|
160−170
+105%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
−101%
|
139
+101%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−153%
|
170−180
+153%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
−291%
|
220−230
+291%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−119%
|
300−350
+119%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−109%
|
160−170
+109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 29
−366%
|
135
+366%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
−205%
|
290−300
+205%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 66
−93.9%
|
128
+93.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−153%
|
170−180
+153%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
−331%
|
168
+331%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−119%
|
300−350
+119%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−155%
|
250−260
+155%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−318%
|
160−170
+318%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−204%
|
400−450
+204%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−231%
|
106
+231%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−275%
|
90−95
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−3.6%
|
170−180
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−98.3%
|
350−400
+98.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−158%
|
130−140
+158%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−447%
|
93
+447%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−193%
|
123
+193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−281%
|
170−180
+281%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−290%
|
120−130
+290%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−251%
|
150−160
+251%
|
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−227%
|
45−50
+227%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−356%
|
70−75
+356%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−329%
|
146
+329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−280%
|
55−60
+280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−330%
|
116
+330%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−199%
|
300−350
+199%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−243%
|
95−100
+243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−356%
|
70−75
+356%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−529%
|
44
+529%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−197%
|
190−200
+197%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−415%
|
103
+415%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−294%
|
130−140
+294%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−433%
|
95−100
+433%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−316%
|
75−80
+316%
|
This is how RX 6500M and RX 7900M compete in popular games:
- RX 7900M is 144% faster in 1080p
- RX 7900M is 209% faster in 1440p
- RX 7900M is 213% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7900M is 529% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 7900M surpassed RX 6500M in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.06 | 52.08 |
| Recency | 4 January 2022 | 19 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 180 Watt |
RX 6500M has 260% lower power consumption.
RX 7900M, on the other hand, has a 205.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7900M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6500M 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.
