ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 vs R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Mobility Radeon HD 3650, including specs and performance data.
R9 270X outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 3500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 402 | 1298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.66 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.86 | 0.81 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | M86 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 7 January 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
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 | 1280 | 120 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 378 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 0.12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 80 | 8 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 22.4 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+3500%
|
2−3
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1243%
|
7−8
−1243%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| World of Tanks | 170−180
+1223%
|
12−14
−1223%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1243%
|
7−8
−1243%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 90−95
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 270X surpassed ATI Mobility HD 3650 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.24 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 7 January 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 30 Watt |
R9 270X has a 3500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 3650, on the other hand, has 500% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 3650 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
