Radeon RX 6650M vs RX Vega 9
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 9 and Radeon RX 6650M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6650M outperforms RX Vega 9 by a whopping 597% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 615 | 122 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.55 | 22.28 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 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 | 576 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 2416 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 270.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 8.659 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
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 | 18
−556%
| 118
+556%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−731%
|
100−110
+731%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−575%
|
80−85
+575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−1055%
|
127
+1055%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−731%
|
100−110
+731%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−477%
|
120−130
+477%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−575%
|
80−85
+575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−864%
|
106
+864%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−660%
|
110−120
+660%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−145%
|
54
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−783%
|
100−110
+783%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−620%
|
140−150
+620%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−241%
|
210−220
+241%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−731%
|
100−110
+731%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−477%
|
120−130
+477%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−575%
|
80−85
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−211%
|
270−280
+211%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−618%
|
79
+618%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−168%
|
118
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−660%
|
110−120
+660%
|
| Fortnite | 16
−188%
|
46
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−783%
|
100−110
+783%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−578%
|
120−130
+578%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−760%
|
86
+760%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−620%
|
140−150
+620%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−1185%
|
167
+1185%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−241%
|
210−220
+241%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−477%
|
120−130
+477%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−575%
|
80−85
+575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−482%
|
64
+482%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−127%
|
100
+127%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−660%
|
110−120
+660%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−783%
|
100−110
+783%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−620%
|
140−150
+620%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−1025%
|
90
+1025%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−241%
|
210−220
+241%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9
−344%
|
40
+344%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−520%
|
240−250
+520%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−1100%
|
70−75
+1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1200%
|
50−55
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−400%
|
170−180
+400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−320%
|
240−250
+320%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1467%
|
90−95
+1467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−760%
|
85−90
+760%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−742%
|
100−110
+742%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−738%
|
65−70
+738%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−840%
|
90−95
+840%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−353%
|
75−80
+353%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2750%
|
55−60
+2750%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−746%
|
220−230
+746%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1800%
|
55−60
+1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−489%
|
100−110
+489%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−840%
|
45−50
+840%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−857%
|
65−70
+857%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−840%
|
45−50
+840%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 9 and RX 6650M compete in popular games:
- RX 6650M is 556% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M is 2750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6650M is ahead in 64 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.58 | 38.92 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 120 Watt |
RX Vega 9 has 700% lower power consumption.
RX 6650M, on the other hand, has a 597.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6650M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 9 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.
