ATI Radeon X1650 SE vs GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile with Radeon X1650 SE, including specs and performance data.

RTX 2050 Mobile
2021
4 GB GDDR6, 45 Watt
16.09
+9956%

RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms ATI X1650 SE by a whopping 9956% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3111416
Place by popularity32not in top-100
Power efficiency28.420.47
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGA107RV515
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date17 December 2021 (3 years ago)2007 (18 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 cores2048no data
Core clock speed1185 MHz635 MHz
Boost clock speed1477 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data107 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt27 Watt
Texture fill rate94.532.540
Floating-point processing power6.05 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs644
Tensor Cores256no data
Ray Tracing Cores32no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 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 typeGDDR6DDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz800 MBps
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.63.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA8.6-
DLSS+-

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 HD42-0−1
1440p32-0−1
4K28-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 74 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 47 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 49 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 67 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 42 0−1
Far Cry 5 59 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 62 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+13400%
1−2
−13400%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 40 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+10850%
2−3
−10850%
Cyberpunk 2077 29 0−1
Dota 2 118
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
Far Cry 5 53 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 53 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 68 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 58 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+13400%
1−2
−13400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 25 0−1
Dota 2 110
+10900%
1−2
−10900%
Far Cry 5 49 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+13400%
1−2
−13400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+12700%
1−2
−12700%
Grand Theft Auto V 37 0−1
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+16400%
1−2
−16400%
Valorant 170−180
+16900%
1−2
−16900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 37 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Valorant 95−100 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 34 0−1
Far Cry 5 18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.09 0.16
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 27 Watt

RTX 2050 Mobile has a 9956.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1650 SE, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 SE in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 SE is a desktop one.

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 RTX 2050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 2050
ATI Radeon X1650 SE
Radeon X1650 SE

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 2519 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon X1650 SE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile or Radeon X1650 SE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.