Radeon RX 6650M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	478	117
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	22.72	22.39
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Navi 23
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	4 January 2022 (3 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	1792
Core clock speed	400 MHz	2068 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	2416 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	270.6
Floating-point processing power	no data	8.659 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	64
TMUs	no data	112
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	28

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	no data	large
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
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	no data	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	no data	8 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	256.0 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

no data

No outputs

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_1	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.5
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.24

RX 6650M 39.03
+322%

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6504

RX 6650M 32846
+405%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5139

RX 6650M 25739
+401%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 1560

RX 6650M 8700
+458%

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	27 −330%	116 +330%
1440p	16 −306%	65−70 +306%
4K	11 −309%	45−50 +309%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	15 −440%	80−85 +440%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 −535%	127 +535%
Elden Ring	21 −229%	69 +229%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −247%	100−110 +247%
Counter-Strike 2	13 −523%	80−85 +523%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 −279%	53 +279%
Forza Horizon 4	38 −484%	222 +484%
Metro Exodus	29 −224%	90−95 +224%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 −353%	75−80 +353%
Valorant	26 −500%	150−160 +500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −247%	100−110 +247%
Counter-Strike 2	12 −575%	80−85 +575%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 −255%	39 +255%
Dota 2	28 −39.3%	39 +39.3%
Elden Ring	22 −523%	130−140 +523%
Far Cry 5	31 −48.4%	46 +48.4%
Fortnite	50−55 −217%	170−180 +217%
Forza Horizon 4	30 −533%	190 +533%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 −618%	120−130 +618%
Metro Exodus	19 −73.7%	33 +73.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −178%	200−210 +178%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 −863%	75−80 +863%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −393%	130−140 +393%
Valorant	30−35 −359%	150−160 +359%
World of Tanks	96 −191%	270−280 +191%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −247%	100−110 +247%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −350%	80−85 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −220%	32 +220%
Dota 2	47 −113%	100 +113%
Far Cry 5	34 −185%	95−100 +185%
Forza Horizon 4	24 −596%	167 +596%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −178%	200−210 +178%
Valorant	23 −578%	150−160 +578%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7 −929%	70−75 +929%
Elden Ring	15 −427%	75−80 +427%
Grand Theft Auto V	7 −929%	70−75 +929%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −289%	170−180 +289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −388%	35−40 +388%
World of Tanks	65−70 −269%	240−250 +269%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −324%	70−75 +324%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −290%	35−40 +290%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 −1200%	35−40 +1200%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −530%	120−130 +530%
Forza Horizon 4	19 −495%	110−120 +495%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −400%	85−90 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −518%	65−70 +518%
Valorant	21−24 −430%	120−130 +430%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Dota 2	8 −863%	75−80 +863%
Elden Ring	7 −443%	35−40 +443%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 −863%	75−80 +863%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −560%	30−35 +560%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −367%	120−130 +367%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −317%	24−27 +317%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −863%	75−80 +863%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −750%	16−18 +750%
Dota 2	20 −285%	75−80 +285%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −427%	55−60 +427%
Fortnite	10−11 −450%	55−60 +450%
Forza Horizon 4	11 −482%	60−65 +482%
Valorant	9−10 −611%	60−65 +611%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and RX 6650M compete in popular games:

RX 6650M is 330% faster in 1080p
RX 6650M is 306% faster in 1440p
RX 6650M is 309% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M is 1233% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6650M surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.24	39.03
Recency	15 August 2020	4 January 2022
Chip lithography	10 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	120 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has 328.6% lower power consumption.

RX 6650M, on the other hand, has a 322.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6650M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.