Radeon Vega 7 vs ATI X1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon X1650 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 4050% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1397 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.38 |
| Architecture | R500 (2005−2007) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV516 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 November 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (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 | no data | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 635 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 107 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.540 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 4 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | IGP |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 392 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.272 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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 | 0−1 | 22 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 32 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.18 | 7.47 |
| Recency | 20 November 2007 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 7 nm |
Vega 7 has a 4050% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon X1650 is a desktop card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
