GeForce RTX 3060 Ti vs ATI Radeon X1650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1650 and GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI X1650
2007
256 MB DDR2
0.18

RTX 3060 Ti outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 29428% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking140149
Place by popularitynot in top-10026
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data67.49
Power efficiencyno data18.29
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRV516GA104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date20 November 2007 (17 years ago)1 December 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 coresno data4864
Core clock speed635 MHz1410 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors107 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data200 Watt
Texture fill rate2.540253.1
Floating-point processing powerno data16.2 TFLOPS
ROPs480
TMUs4152
Tensor Coresno data152
Ray Tracing Coresno data38

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data242 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 12-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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed392 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.272 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA-8.6

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

ATI X1650 0.18
RTX 3060 Ti 53.15
+29428%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

ATI X1650 71
RTX 3060 Ti 20432
+28677%

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-0−1142
1440p-0−178
4K-0−149

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.81
1440pno data5.12
4Kno data8.14

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 161
+0%
161
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 83
+0%
83
+0%
Elden Ring 141
+0%
141
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 124
+0%
124
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 91
+0%
91
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220
+0%
220
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 320
+0%
320
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%
Dota 2 142
+0%
142
+0%
Elden Ring 187
+0%
187
+0%
Far Cry 5 103
+0%
103
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 192
+0%
192
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 141
+0%
141
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
+0%
89
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Dota 2 135
+0%
135
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 174
+0%
174
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Valorant 274
+0%
274
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Elden Ring 101
+0%
101
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
World of Tanks 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+0%
50
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 139
+0%
139
+0%
Metro Exodus 93
+0%
93
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 219
+0%
219
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Dota 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Elden Ring 57
+0%
57
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 107
+0%
107
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 107
+0%
107
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Dota 2 109
+0%
109
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+0%
84
+0%
Valorant 122
+0%
122
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 53.15
Recency 20 November 2007 1 December 2020
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 8 nm

RTX 3060 Ti has a 29427.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.


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.


ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 69 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 15937 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 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.