GeForce GT 650M SLI vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GT 650M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GT 650M SLI by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 598 | 640 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.65 | no data |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | N13E-GE |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 835 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 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 |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2x2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 2x 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 4000 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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_1 | 11 |
| 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.
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 | 90−95
+13.9%
| 79
−13.9%
|
| Full HD | 20
−150%
| 50
+150%
|
| 1440p | 23
+27.8%
| 18−20
−27.8%
|
| 4K | 18
+28.6%
| 14−16
−28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+160%
|
20−22
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 33
+17.9%
|
27−30
−17.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| Valorant | 97
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−148%
|
139
+148%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+2.4%
|
40−45
−2.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−27.3%
|
27−30
+27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Valorant | 73
+21.7%
|
60−65
−21.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−2.5%
|
40−45
+2.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 19
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+19.4%
|
35−40
−19.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+8.8%
|
30−35
−8.8%
|
| Valorant | 49
−6.1%
|
50−55
+6.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 22
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GT 650M SLI compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 14% faster in 900p
- GT 650M SLI is 150% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 28% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 160% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 650M SLI is 216% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 40 tests (68%)
- GT 650M SLI is ahead in 13 tests (22%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.21 | 4.37 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 22 March 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 19.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M SLI 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.
