Radeon RX 6650 XT vs GeForce GT 415M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 415M with Radeon RX 6650 XT, including specs and performance data.

GT 415M
2010
512 MB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.74

RX 6650 XT outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 5927% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking115578
Place by popularitynot in top-10099
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data62.44
Power efficiency4.2917.61
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGF108Navi 23
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 September 2010 (14 years ago)10 May 2022 (2 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 cores482048
Core clock speed500 MHz2055 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2635 MHz
Number of transistors585 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt176 Watt
Texture fill rate4.000337.3
Floating-point processing power0.096 TFLOPS10.79 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2190 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s280.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

GT 415M 0.74
RX 6650 XT 44.60
+5927%

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.

GT 415M 286
RX 6650 XT 17207
+5916%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 415M 379
RX 6650 XT 41739
+10913%

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 HD2−3
−6900%
140
+6900%
1440p1−2
−6500%
66
+6500%
4K0−137

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.85
1440pno data6.05
4Kno data10.78

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4167%
128
+4167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2867%
85−90
+2867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−3500%
108
+3500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−10800%
100−110
+10800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1820%
95−100
+1820%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1545%
180−190
+1545%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 100−105
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2700%
160−170
+2700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−339%
130−140
+339%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2867%
85−90
+2867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2833%
88
+2833%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−10800%
100−110
+10800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1820%
95−100
+1820%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1545%
180−190
+1545%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 100−105
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3600%
222
+3600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−820%
90−95
+820%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−339%
130−140
+339%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2867%
85−90
+2867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2500%
78
+2500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1820%
95−100
+1820%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1473%
173
+1473%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3117%
193
+3117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−970%
107
+970%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−110%
65
+110%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 100−105

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 85−90
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6800%
65−70
+6800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4300%
44
+4300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5100%
50−55
+5100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−4200%
129
+4200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−10200%
200−210
+10200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2467%
75−80
+2467%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 35−40

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 27−30
Far Cry 5 0−1 27−30

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1950%
40−45
+1950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Metro Exodus 114
+0%
114
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 124
+0%
124
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 64
+0%
64
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 23
+0%
23
+0%

This is how GT 415M and RX 6650 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6650 XT is 6900% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6650 XT is 6500% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6650 XT is 10800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6650 XT is ahead in 35 tests (55%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 44.60
Recency 3 September 2010 10 May 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 176 Watt

GT 415M has 1366.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6650 XT, on the other hand, has a 5927% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6650 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 415M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6650 XT is a desktop one.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
GeForce GT 415M
AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT
Radeon RX 6650 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.8 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 3305 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6650 XT 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.