GeForce RTX 4070 vs ATI Radeon X1650 PRO

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1650 PRO and GeForce RTX 4070, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI X1650 PRO
2007
256 MB GDDR3, 44 Watt
0.22

RTX 4070 outperforms ATI X1650 PRO by a whopping 31764% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking138220
Place by popularitynot in top-10034
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data59.54
Power efficiency0.3424.13
ArchitectureUltra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameRV530AD104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 February 2007 (17 years ago)12 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

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 coresno data5888
Core clock speed600 MHz1920 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2475 MHz
Number of transistors157 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)44 Watt200 Watt
Texture fill rate2.400455.4
Floating-point processing powerno data29.15 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs4184
Tensor Coresno data184
Ray Tracing Coresno data46

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data240 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 16-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount256 MB12 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1313 MHz
Memory bandwidth22.4 GB/s504.2 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.7
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.9

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.

ATI X1650 PRO 0.22
RTX 4070 70.10
+31764%

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.

ATI X1650 PRO 84
RTX 4070 26950
+31983%

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 HD0−1217
1440p-0−1124
4K-0−177

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.76
1440pno data4.83
4Kno data7.78

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 216
+0%
216
+0%
Elden Ring 233
+0%
233
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 87
+0%
87
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 482
+0%
482
+0%
Metro Exodus 174
+0%
174
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%
Dota 2 174
+0%
174
+0%
Elden Ring 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Far Cry 5 156
+0%
156
+0%
Fortnite 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 376
+0%
376
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 174
+0%
174
+0%
Metro Exodus 149
+0%
149
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 322
+0%
322
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 137
+0%
137
+0%
Elden Ring 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 137
+0%
137
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
World of Tanks 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 222
+0%
222
+0%
Metro Exodus 143
+0%
143
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Dota 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Elden Ring 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 146
+0%
146
+0%
Metro Exodus 65
+0%
65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 146
+0%
146
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 121
+0%
121
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.22 70.10
Recency 1 February 2007 12 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 12 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 44 Watt 200 Watt

ATI X1650 PRO has 354.5% lower power consumption.

RTX 4070, on the other hand, has a 31763.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 PRO in performance tests.


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.


ATI Radeon X1650 PRO
Radeon X1650 PRO
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce RTX 4070

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 69 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 9677 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4070 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.