AMD Radeon RX 6650M vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall result: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon RX 6650M, with a final win count of 2 wins to 0.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 65,800 points. This represents a 122.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card, meaning it more than doubles the AMD part's score in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is substantial enough that the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is in a completely different performance tier for OpenCL compute tasks.

The Vulkan test shows a narrower but still significant gap. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 123,842 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 77,735 points. The 59.3% delta indicates that while the AMD card is more competitive in graphics API workloads than in pure compute, it still trails by a wide margin.

These results align with each card's position in the overall database. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 135,218. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M sits at the 91st percentile, with an average benchmark score of 71,768. The NVIDIA card's average score is roughly 88% higher than the AMD card's average, which is consistent with the head-to-head OpenCL result.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides additional context. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation's closest competitors in the database are the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (a -0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (a -0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (a -0.9% delta). This cluster shows that the RTX 4000 Ada Generation performs essentially on par with other high-end workstation and prosumer cards, all within a 1% band.

The AMD Radeon RX 6650M's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829, which is 1.3% slower. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 72,098, which is 0.5% faster. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 72,379, which is 0.8% faster, and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition scores 73,370, which is 2.2% faster. The RX 6650M is thus grouped with older high-end cards and newer mid-range parts, a full tier below the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's peer group.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and density gap.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The NVIDIA chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The AMD chip contains 11,060 million transistors on a die size of 237 mm², yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². Despite the AMD die being only about 19% smaller in area, the NVIDIA die packs over three times as many transistors. This density advantage is a direct consequence of the 5 nm process versus 7 nm.

The compute resources are equally lopsided. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The RX 6650M has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA card has more than three times the shading units and nearly double the texture units, though both cards have identical ROP counts at 64.

Ray tracing and tensor hardware further separate the two. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The RX 6650M includes 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as RDNA 2 relies on shader-based compute for AI workloads rather than dedicated tensor hardware. The absence of tensor cores on the AMD side is a notable architectural difference for any workload that leverages NVIDIA's tensor-accelerated paths.

Clock speeds show an interesting inversion. The RX 6650M runs at a base clock of 2,068 MHz and a boost clock of 2,416 MHz, with a game clock of 2,222 MHz. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation runs at a base clock of 1,500 MHz and a boost clock of 2,175 MHz. The AMD part clocks higher, but the NVIDIA part compensates with far more execution resources. The pixel rate tells this story: the RX 6650M achieves 154.6 GPixel/s versus the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's 139.2 GPixel/s, so the AMD card is about 11% faster in raw pixel throughput. The texture rate flips the result: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation achieves 417.6 GTexel/s versus 270.6 GTexel/s for the RX 6650M, a 54% advantage for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations follow the same pattern of NVIDIA superiority. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card provides 150% more memory capacity and 61% more bandwidth. The memory clocks are 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation winning in both compute and graphics API benchmarks. The OpenCL result, with a 122.8% delta, indicates that the NVIDIA card is particularly dominant in general-purpose compute workloads. This aligns with its workstation positioning and its much higher FP32 throughput of 26.73 TFLOPS versus 8.659 TFLOPS for the AMD card.

The Vulkan result, with a 59.3% delta, shows the NVIDIA card also leads in modern graphics API performance, though the margin is smaller. The AMD card's higher pixel rate of 154.6 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s suggests it has some advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, but this does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon RX 6650M does have one clear architectural edge: its FP16 throughput of 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is double its FP32 rate, whereas the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's FP16 rate of 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) matches its FP32 rate. For workloads that can exploit packed FP16 math, the AMD card's ratio is more favorable, though the absolute FP16 number for NVIDIA is still higher.

Power consumption favors the AMD card on paper. The RX 6650M has a TDP of 120 W, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 130 W. The NVIDIA card delivers roughly three times the FP32 throughput within just 10 W more, which indicates a substantially better performance-per-watt profile. The RX 6650M is an integrated mobile part (IGP slot width, no power connectors), while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot card requiring a 1x 16-pin connector and a 300 W suggested power supply.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 122.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6650M's 65,800. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 6650M win any benchmark against the RTX 4000 Ada Generation?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA card winning both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, with a final win count of 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 wins for AMD.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M is built on a 7 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA chip has 35,800 million transistors versus 11,060 million for AMD.

Q: Does the AMD card have tensor cores?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M has no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation includes 192 tensor cores alongside 48 ray tracing cores.

Q: How does the overall benchmark percentile compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M sits at the 91st percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation | AMD Radeon RX 6650M |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2175 MHz | 2416 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 2222 MHz |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 1792 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 192 | 112 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 28 |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 154.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 270.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS | 8.659 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2022-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Workstation Ampere | Polaris Mobile |

| Successor | Blackwell PRO W | None |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. Its OpenCL lead of 122.8% and Vulkan lead of 59.3% place it firmly in a higher performance class, and its 95th percentile ranking versus the AMD card's 91st percentile confirms this across the broader database.

The performance-per-watt story also favors NVIDIA. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 performance at a 130 W TDP, while the RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS at a 120 W TDP. The NVIDIA card produces over three times the compute throughput with only 10 W more power draw. For mobile or power-constrained designs, the RX 6650M's lower absolute power consumption is its only advantage, and that comes with a massive compute penalty.

The memory capacity gap is another decisive factor. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's 20 GB of GDDR6 versus the RX 6650M's 8 GB means the NVIDIA card can handle larger datasets in GPU memory without spilling to system memory. The bandwidth difference of 360.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s further compounds this advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

The AMD card's higher clock speeds and pixel rate do not translate into benchmark wins. A boost clock of 2,416 MHz versus 2,175 MHz and a pixel rate of 154.6 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s are real advantages in isolation, but they are overwhelmed by the NVIDIA card's superior execution resource count and memory subsystem.

For buyers choosing between these two GPUs, the decision hinges on the use case. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice for compute-heavy workstation tasks, large memory footprints, or any workload that can leverage its 192 tensor cores. The RX 6650M, as an end-of-life integrated mobile part, is suited only for lightweight or legacy applications where its lower power draw and simpler integration are paramount. The benchmark data shows no scenario in its favor among the recorded tests, so the NVIDIA card is the recommendation for anyone prioritizing raw performance.