ATI Radeon X1650 vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with Radeon X1650, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 4731% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 502 | 1417 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.88 | no data |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Vega | RV516 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 20 November 2007 (17 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 | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 635 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.540 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 4 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 392 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.272 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 data | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 22 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 16 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 10 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 39 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 47 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 11 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 31 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 28 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 48 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 37 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.73 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 20 November 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 80 nm |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 4731.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
