Radeon RX 6650M XT vs Quadro K2000M

Place in the ranking	814	82
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	no data
Power efficiency	3.32	25.71
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK107	Navi 23
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$265.27	no data

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 cores	384	2048
Core clock speed	745 MHz	2068 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2416 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.84	309.2
Floating-point processing power	0.5722 TFLOPS	9.896 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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	large
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	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 outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	+	1.3
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.

K2000M 2.62

RX 6650M XT 44.25
+1589%

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.

K2000M 1010

RX 6650M XT 17070
+1590%

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

−1567%

400−450
+1567%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.05

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1471%	110−120 +1471%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1515%	210−220 +1515%
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1471%	110−120 +1471%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1515%	210−220 +1515%
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1515%	210−220 +1515%
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−1567%

100−105

+1567%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −1567%	250−260 +1567%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how K2000M and RX 6650M XT compete in popular games:

RX 6650M XT is 1567% faster in 1080p

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K2000M is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, K2000M surpassed RX 6650M XT in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.62	44.25
Recency	1 June 2012	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt

K2000M has 118.2% lower power consumption.

RX 6650M XT, on the other hand, has a 1588.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6650M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6650M XT is a mobile workstation one.

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