Quadro M6000 24 GB vs Radeon HD 8650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8650M with Quadro M6000 24 GB, including specs and performance data.
M6000 24 GB outperforms HD 8650M by a whopping 1405% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 892 | 190 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.17 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 8.44 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | no data | GM200 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 5 March 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 900 Million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 285.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 256 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 317.4 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1362%
|
190−200
+1362%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1400%
|
210−220
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1400%
|
210−220
+1400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1367%
|
220−230
+1367%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.04 | 30.71 |
| Recency | 7 January 2013 | 5 March 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
M6000 24 GB has a 1405.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8650M is a notebook card while Quadro M6000 24 GB is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
