Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics vs HD 7970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire and Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7970M Crossfire outperforms HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 344 | 821 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.53 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | no data |
| GPU code name | Wimbledon XT | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 August 2013 (11 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 | 2560 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 720 / 775 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 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 | large | medium sized |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1800 - 2000 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 11 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 132
+355%
| 29
−355%
|
| Full HD | 101
+531%
| 16−18
−531%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+767%
|
6−7
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+491%
|
10−12
−491%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+767%
|
6−7
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+529%
|
14−16
−529%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+491%
|
10−12
−491%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+356%
|
24−27
−356%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+314%
|
45−50
−314%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+767%
|
6−7
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+491%
|
10−12
−491%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+356%
|
24−27
−356%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+744%
|
18−20
−744%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+517%
|
18−20
−517%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics compete in popular games:
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 355% faster in 900p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 531% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7970M Crossfire surpassed HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.78 | 2.63 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 1 August 2013 |
HD 7970M Crossfire has a 500% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics 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.
