ATI Radeon X1650 PRO vs UHD Graphics 600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 600 with Radeon X1650 PRO, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics 600 outperforms ATI X1650 PRO by a whopping 295% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1131 | 1375 |
| Place by popularity | 58 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.94 | 0.34 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Gemini Lake GT1 | RV530 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 December 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 February 2007 (17 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 | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 157 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 44 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.800 | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1248 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 12 | 4 |
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 | Ring Bus | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 9
+350%
| 2−3
−350%
|
| 1440p | 1 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 13
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how UHD Graphics 600 and ATI X1650 PRO compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 600 is 350% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.87 | 0.22 |
| Recency | 11 December 2017 | 1 February 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 44 Watt |
UHD Graphics 600 has a 295.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 780% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 600 is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 PRO is a desktop 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.
