GMA 3650 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking480not rated
Place by popularity29not in top-100
Power efficiency41.96no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)PowerVR SGX545 (2008−2010)
GPU code nameVegaCedarview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2020 (4 years ago)1 October 2008 (16 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 cores51232
Core clock speedno data640 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data2.560
Floating-point processing powerno data0.04096 TFLOPS
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataPCI

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Shared memory-+

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_110.1
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno dataES 2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2020 1 October 2008
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3650, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GMA 3650. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Intel GMA 3650
GMA 3650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 1118 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate GMA 3650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.