Radeon RX 7650 GRE vs RX Vega M GL / 870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 with Radeon RX 7650 GRE, including specs and performance data.
RX 7650 GRE outperforms RX Vega M GL / 870 by a whopping 221% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 407 | 108 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 80.50 |
| Power efficiency | 14.56 | 18.41 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega Kaby Lake-G | Navi 33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 years ago) | February 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1280 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 2695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 345.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 22.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 204 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 288.0 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 data | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 43
−202%
| 130−140
+202%
|
| 1440p | 28
−204%
| 85−90
+204%
|
| 4K | 14
−186%
| 40−45
+186%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.15 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.28 |
| 4K | no data | 6.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−219%
|
230−240
+219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 45−50
−213%
|
150−160
+213%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 62
−206%
|
190−200
+206%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−219%
|
230−240
+219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 45−50
−213%
|
150−160
+213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−210%
|
130−140
+210%
|
| Fortnite | 86
−214%
|
270−280
+214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−209%
|
170−180
+209%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−200%
|
120−130
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−219%
|
150−160
+219%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−215%
|
350−400
+215%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 52
−208%
|
160−170
+208%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−219%
|
230−240
+219%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−206%
|
550−600
+206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 45−50
−213%
|
150−160
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−218%
|
270−280
+218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−208%
|
120−130
+208%
|
| Fortnite | 56
−204%
|
170−180
+204%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−209%
|
170−180
+209%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−200%
|
120−130
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−219%
|
150−160
+219%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−215%
|
350−400
+215%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 48
−213%
|
150−160
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 45−50
−213%
|
150−160
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−218%
|
270−280
+218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
−206%
|
110−120
+206%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−209%
|
170−180
+209%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−219%
|
150−160
+219%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−215%
|
350−400
+215%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 38
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−220%
|
80−85
+220%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−209%
|
300−310
+209%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
−206%
|
190−200
+206%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−192%
|
400−450
+192%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 34
−194%
|
100−105
+194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−206%
|
95−100
+206%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
−210%
|
90−95
+210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−214%
|
220−230
+214%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−213%
|
50−55
+213%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−219%
|
150−160
+219%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and RX 7650 GRE compete in popular games:
- RX 7650 GRE is 202% faster in 1080p
- RX 7650 GRE is 204% faster in 1440p
- RX 7650 GRE is 186% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.31 | 42.71 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 165 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has 153.8% lower power consumption.
RX 7650 GRE, on the other hand, has a 220.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7650 GRE is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook card while Radeon RX 7650 GRE 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.
