GeForce RTX 3070 Ti vs ATI Radeon X1650

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1650 and GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI X1650
2007
256 MB DDR2
0.18

RTX 3070 Ti outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 33867% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking140132
Place by popularitynot in top-10088
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data51.93
Power efficiencyno data14.51
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRV516GA104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date20 November 2007 (17 years ago)31 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

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 data6144
Core clock speed635 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1770 MHz
Number of transistors107 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data290 Watt
Texture fill rate2.540339.8
Floating-point processing powerno data21.75 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs4192
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 data267 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 typeDDR2GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed392 MHz1188 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.272 GB/s608.3 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 Model3.06.6
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
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 3070 Ti 61.14
+33867%

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 3070 Ti 23507
+33008%

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 HD0−1176
1440p-0−194
4K-0−162

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.40
1440pno data6.37
4Kno data9.66

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 193
+0%
193
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 174
+0%
174
+0%
Elden Ring 195
+0%
195
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 152
+0%
152
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 398
+0%
398
+0%
Metro Exodus 173
+0%
173
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Dota 2 198
+0%
198
+0%
Elden Ring 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Far Cry 5 162
+0%
162
+0%
Fortnite 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 316
+0%
316
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 173
+0%
173
+0%
Metro Exodus 138
+0%
138
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 114
+0%
114
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 56
+0%
56
+0%
Dota 2 230
+0%
230
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 274
+0%
274
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 137
+0%
137
+0%
Elden Ring 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 137
+0%
137
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
World of Tanks 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 205
+0%
205
+0%
Metro Exodus 135
+0%
135
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Dota 2 147
+0%
147
+0%
Elden Ring 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 147
+0%
147
+0%
Metro Exodus 56
+0%
56
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 147
+0%
147
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 194
+0%
194
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 119
+0%
119
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 61.14
Recency 20 November 2007 31 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 8 nm

RTX 3070 Ti has a 33866.7% 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 3070 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 3070 Ti
GeForce RTX 3070 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 6263 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3070 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.