AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti. In the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 650 Ti scores 7,877 points against the AMD Radeon HD 8850M's 7,447 points. That is a 5.8% delta, a meaningful margin that places the NVIDIA card ahead in raw compute workloads. The Radeon HD 8850M manages no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, with the GTX 650 Ti taking all 1 recorded wins.

Context from the nearestRivals data sharpens the picture. The GTX 650 Ti's average benchmark score is 8,053, which places it within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 880M (8,040) and 0.2% ahead of the Quadro P5000 (8,039). It sits 0.2% behind its own Boost variant (8,067) and 0.3% behind the GRID K2 (8,080). These are razor-thin margins, indicating that the GTX 650 Ti is operating at the upper edge of its performance tier. The Radeon HD 8850M, by contrast, averages 7,447 points, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.3% ahead of the Radeon R7 350 (7,425), but 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) and 1.4% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7,550). The AMD part sits in a lower performance band, and the 5.8% gap to the GTX 650 Ti is consistent with that positioning.

In percentile terms, the GTX 650 Ti ranks at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon HD 8850M sits at the 40th percentile. That two-point spread is small in absolute terms, but it reflects the consistent lead the NVIDIA card holds in the available data. The Geekbench Vulkan score for the GTX 650 Ti of 8,229 further reinforces its compute strength, though no Vulkan result is available for the Radeon HD 8850M, so a direct comparison cannot be made on that test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti is built on the GK106S chip using the Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 600 generation. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M uses the Venus chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Solar System (HD 8800M) generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the transistor budgets diverge sharply.

The NVIDIA chip packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². The AMD chip is smaller in every respect: 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.2M / mm². That density advantage does not translate into performance, as the GTX 650 Ti's larger chip provides more raw resources. The NVIDIA card features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The ROP count is equal, but the NVIDIA card holds a 20% advantage in shading units and a 60% advantage in TMUs, which explains its higher texture and pixel throughput.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon HD 8850M has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz, while the GTX 650 Ti has no listed base or boost clock in the data. The memory clocks, however, favor NVIDIA: the GTX 650 Ti runs at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective, while the AMD card runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. That higher memory clock, combined with the same 128-bit bus width, gives the GTX 650 Ti a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s for the Radeon HD 8850M — a 35% advantage for NVIDIA.

The memory configuration also differs in capacity. The GTX 650 Ti ships with 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the Radeon HD 8850M offers 2 GB of GDDR5. The AMD card has double the capacity, which can matter in texture-heavy workloads, but the NVIDIA card's superior bandwidth means it moves data faster. Pixel rate stands at 14.85 GPixel/s for the GTX 650 Ti versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the Radeon HD 8850M. Texture rate is 59.39 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s — a 2.4x gap that is the largest single difference in the spec sheet. FP32 compute is 1,425.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 800.0 GFLOPS for AMD, a 78% advantage.

API support is broadly similar, with both cards supporting DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170 — a minor version difference. The GTX 650 Ti lists DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level, while the Radeon HD 8850M lists DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a slightly higher feature level. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.8%, holds a higher average benchmark score (8,053 vs 7,447), and ranks higher in the percentile distribution (42nd vs 40th). The Radeon HD 8850M does not win a single benchmark in the comparison data. If raw performance is the sole criterion, the GTX 650 Ti is the clear choice.

The AMD card's only advantages are memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB) and a newer DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)). Those are real but secondary considerations. The 2 GB frame buffer can help in high-resolution textures, and the DirectX 11_1 feature level may enable specific rendering paths in some titles. However, the GTX 650 Ti's advantages in bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), texture rate (59.39 GTexel/s vs 25.00 GTexel/s), pixel rate (14.85 GPixel/s vs 10.00 GPixel/s), and FP32 compute (1,425.4 GFLOPS vs 800.0 GFLOPS) are far more impactful for overall performance.

The GTX 650 Ti also has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, which can be stated once for reference. The Radeon HD 8850M has no launch MSRP listed. Neither card is in production, with both marked as end-of-life. The GTX 650 Ti was released in October 2012, while the Radeon HD 8850M came later in March 2013. The NVIDIA card is a desktop part with a 110 W TDP, a single-slot design, and a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the Radeon HD 8850M is a mobile part with no TDP, slot width, or power connector data listed. The GTX 650 Ti also has defined dimensions (145 mm / 5.7 inches in length) and display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a), whereas the AMD card lacks those specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti scores 7,877 points versus 7,447 points for the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, a 5.8% delta in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 650 Ti offers 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon HD 8850M provides 64.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the NVIDIA card's higher memory clock (1350 MHz vs 1000 MHz) delivers the advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon HD 8850M have any specification advantage?

A: Yes, it ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB on the GTX 650 Ti, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level compared to DirectX 12 (11_0) on the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The GTX 650 Ti has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The Radeon HD 8850M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare to rival GPUs?

A: The GTX 650 Ti averages 8,053 points, within 0.2% of the GTX 880M (8,040) and 0.3% of the GRID K2 (8,080). The Radeon HD 8850M averages 7,447 points, 1.4% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7,550).

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The GTX 650 Ti delivers 1,425.4 GFLOPS, while the Radeon HD 8850M delivers 800.0 GFLOPS — a 78% advantage for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti wins in every measured benchmark category and nearly every compute metric. Its 5.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the direct head-to-head result, but the supporting data shows broader dominance. The GTX 650 Ti is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, texture-heavy workloads, or high-resolution rendering. Its texture rate of 59.39 GTexel/s is more than double the Radeon HD 8850M's 25.00 GTexel/s, making it far stronger in games and applications that stress texture fill. The pixel rate of 14.85 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s also favors NVIDIA in fill-limited scenarios. The higher memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive tasks like large texture streaming or compute shaders.

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins in memory capacity and API feature level. The 2 GB frame buffer is double the GTX 650 Ti's 1 GB, which can be decisive in modded games, high-resolution texture packs, or workloads that exceed 1 GB of video memory. The DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level is a notch above the GTX 650 Ti's DirectX 12 (11_0), potentially enabling exclusive rendering features in titles that target 11_1. The AMD card also has a higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs 11.5M / mm²), indicating a more compact design, though this does not translate to a performance benefit.

For compute-heavy applications, the GTX 650 Ti's 1,425.4 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS is a decisive factor. For memory-hungry scenarios, the Radeon HD 8850M's 2 GB capacity is the only real edge. The GTX 650 Ti also has a Vulkan score of 8,229, a test the Radeon HD 8850M does not appear in, suggesting NVIDIA's stronger position in Vulkan-based workloads. The Radeon HD 8850M's nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.1% ahead) and the Radeon R7 350 (0.3% ahead), placing it in integrated-and-entry-level territory. The GTX 650 Ti's rivals are the GTX 880M and Quadro P5000, both professional or high-end mobile parts, showing it competes at a higher tier.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti | AMD Radeon HD 8850M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK106S | Venus |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 600 | Solar System (HD 8800M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 625 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz / 5.4 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 640 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.85 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.39 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,425.4 GFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 110 W | — |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | — |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | — |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | — |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a | — |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 145 mm / 5.7 inches | — |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-10-08 | 2013-03-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500 | London |

| Successor | GeForce 700 | Gem System |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | — |