Radeon HD 8650G vs Quadro K3000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with Radeon HD 8650G, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.25
+213%

K3000M outperforms HD 8650G by a whopping 213% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6781016
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.69no data
Power efficiency3.952.71
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameGK104Devastator
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 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 cores576384
Core clock speed654 MHz533 MHz
Boost clock speedno data720 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3917.28
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.553 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs4824

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)IGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed700 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+N/A
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.

K3000M 4.25
+213%
HD 8650G 1.36

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.

K3000M 1640
+214%
HD 8650G 523

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.

K3000M 2427
+69.4%
HD 8650G 1433

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K3000M 11902
+154%
HD 8650G 4689

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:

900p33
+230%
10−12
−230%
Full HD35
+106%
17
−106%
4K27−30
+200%
9
−200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.43no data
4K5.74no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−25%
20
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how K3000M and HD 8650G compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 230% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 106% faster in 1080p
  • K3000M is 200% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3000M is 767% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8650G is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
  • HD 8650G is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.25 1.36
Recency 1 June 2012 23 May 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 35 Watt

K3000M has a 212.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

HD 8650G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650G in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 8650G 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.

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 Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M
AMD Radeon HD 8650G
Radeon HD 8650G

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.


3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 69 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8650G 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.