ATI Radeon X1650 vs GeForce GT 420M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1099not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.12no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGF108RV516
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 September 2010 (14 years ago)20 November 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 cores96no data
Core clock speed500 MHz635 MHz
Number of transistors585 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate8.0002.540
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs164

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 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz392 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s6.272 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 420M 397
+459%
ATI X1650 71

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 September 2010 20 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm

GT 420M has an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 420M and Radeon X1650. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 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 420M
GeForce GT 420M
ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650

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.


2.7 122 votes

Rate GeForce GT 420M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 65 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 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.