AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a starkly one-sided picture. Across the single head-to-head benchmark available in the database, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins outright. That benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points against the HD 6950's 6,210 points. That is a 377.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a massive gap that places these two products in entirely different performance tiers.

However, the database also contains a broader set of benchmarks for the GTX 1650 that highlight where it excels. Its Passmark G3D score of 7,880 and average benchmark score of 7,472 indicate strong general-purpose DirectX performance. The GTX 1650 also shows a clear strength in legacy API workloads, with a Passmark DirectX 9 score of 124 and a Passmark G2D score of 561. The compute side is also respectable, with a Passmark GPU Compute score of 3,048 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,042.

The AMD Radeon HD 6950, by contrast, has only one benchmark recorded in the database: the Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,210. That single data point places it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile. The HD 6950's average benchmark score is 6,210, which is essentially its only measured result. This means the data cannot show any workload where the older AMD card wins; its only recorded metric is the one where it loses decisively.

What the numbers imply is that the GTX 1650 is the stronger card across every measurable dimension in this comparison. The HD 6950's strengths, if any exist in legacy DirectX 9 or 2D workloads, are simply not captured in the database. The data shows a clean sweep for the NVIDIA part, with no counter-example to balance the analysis.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is enormous, and it is visible in nearly every specification. The GTX 1650 is built on TSMC's 12 nm process and uses the TU117 chip, which is part of NVIDIA's Turing architecture. The HD 6950 uses the Cayman chip on TSMC's 40 nm process, built on AMD's TeraScale 3 architecture. Process node alone tells much of the story: 12 nm versus 40 nm is a generational leap in manufacturing technology.

Transistor counts reflect this divide. The GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The HD 6950 has 2,640 million transistors on a much larger 389 mm² die, giving it a density of just 6.8 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is smaller, denser, and more modern.

The memory subsystems differ just as sharply. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The HD 6950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, giving it 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. So the older card actually has more memory bandwidth, but it has half the capacity. The GTX 1650 compensates with a much higher memory clock: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Shader resources also tell a complex story. The HD 6950 has more shading units (1,408 versus 896), more texture mapping units (88 versus 56), and the same number of render output units (32). Yet the GTX 1650 still produces higher throughput numbers: 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 25.60 GPixel/s and 70.40 GTexel/s for the HD 6950. The GTX 1650 also outputs more FP32 compute at 2.984 TFLOPS compared to 2.253 TFLOPS.

API support is another differentiator. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 6950 maxes out at DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support at all. That means the NVIDIA card is compatible with modern graphics APIs, while the AMD card is locked to an older feature set.

Power and physical characteristics also differ dramatically. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, needs no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The HD 6950 has a 200 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1650 is also shorter at 229 mm (9 inches) versus 286 mm (11.3 inches), and narrower at 35 mm (1.4 inches) versus 42 mm (1.7 inches). The HD 6950 is the physically larger card in every dimension.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: anyone choosing between these two cards should pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The benchmark results are unambiguous. In the only direct comparison available, the GTX 1650 leads by 377.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 7,472 is far above the HD 6950's 6,210. Its percentile ranking of 40 versus 36 also favors the newer card.

The GTX 1650 is the better choice for modern gaming and compute workloads. It supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan, has double the memory capacity, runs on a fraction of the power draw, and delivers higher pixel, texture, and FP32 rates. The HD 6950's one advantage is memory bandwidth, at 160.0 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s, but that does not translate into any measured performance win.

The HD 6950 might appeal to someone specifically interested in legacy DirectX 11-era hardware, but the database contains no benchmark results that support such a choice. Its only recorded score is the OpenCL result where it loses badly. For any practical purpose, the GTX 1650 is the superior product.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 has an average score of 6,210.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6,210 for the HD 6950, a 377.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the HD 6950 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the HD 6950 has a 256-bit memory bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 has a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 6950 only supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W power supply. The HD 6950 has a 200 W TDP, needs two 6-pin connectors, and requires a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, while the GTX 1650 has 896. Despite this, the GTX 1650 still produces higher FP32 compute at 2.984 TFLOPS versus 2.253 TFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, and the HD 6950 scores 6,210. The delta is 377.1% in favor of NVIDIA. That is not a close race; it is a generational stomping.

To put that number in context, consider what it means for real-world performance. A 377.1% lead in a compute-oriented OpenCL workload suggests the GTX 1650 is roughly four times faster in general-purpose GPU compute. This aligns with the architectural differences: the Turing-based card has a much higher FP32 throughput (2.984 TFLOPS versus 2.253 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s).

For the GTX 1650's other benchmark results, the database shows a well-rounded performer. Its Passmark G3D score of 7,880 places it near rivals like the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 1% gap) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, a 0.6% gap). Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 124 is its strongest legacy API result, while DirectX 11 (58) and DirectX 12 (35) scores are lower but still functional. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 is modest, but it is a modern, demanding test that the HD 6950 could not even run given its lack of DirectX 12 support.

The HD 6950, by contrast, has no other recorded benchmarks. Its only score is the OpenCL result, and that single data point anchors its entire profile. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro W600 (6,223, a 0.2% gap) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, a 1.1% gap). The GTX 1650's nearest rivals are also telling: the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, a 0.4% gap) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, a 0.6% gap) are all close to its average score. This means the GTX 1650 sits in a completely different competitive bracket than the HD 6950.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The HD 6950 uses a 40 nm process with 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die. Transistor density is 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 6.8M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds show similar divergence. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The HD 6950 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks are 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1650 versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the HD 6950.

Memory capacity and bus width differ: 4 GB on a 128-bit bus for the GTX 1650, 2 GB on a 256-bit bus for the HD 6950. Bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Shading units are 896 versus 1,408. TMUs are 56 versus 88. ROPs are identical at 32. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 2.253 TFLOPS. The GTX 1650 also has FP16 compute at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), while the HD 6950 has no FP16 data.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. TDP is 75 W versus 200 W. The GTX 1650 has no power connectors; the HD 6950 needs two 6-pin connectors. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 550 W. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. The HD 6950 is 286 mm long, 126 mm tall, and 42 mm wide. Both are dual-slot cards.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the HD 6950. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The HD 6950 has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. API support is a one-sided affair, with the GTX 1650 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 6950 stops at DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4 with no Vulkan. Release dates are also far apart: the GTX 1650 launched on 2019-04-22, and the HD 6950 launched on 2010-12-13.