Radeon HD 8650M vs GeForce GT 640M LE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M LE and Radeon HD 8650M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8650M outperforms GT 640M LE by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 929 | 891 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.97 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $849.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | Up to 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 500 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 900 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 12.05 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.289 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no data |
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 size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
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 | DDR3\DDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 785 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 28.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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:
| 900p | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
| Full HD | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.74 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 640M LE and HD 8650M compete in popular games:
- HD 8650M is 11% faster in 900p
- HD 8650M is 11% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8650M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8650M is ahead in 24 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.77 | 1.96 |
| Recency | 4 May 2012 | 7 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 8650M has a 10.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
