AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT scores 76,904 points, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 62,552 points, giving the RX 6650M XT a 22.9% lead. This is a substantial margin in raw compute throughput, and it frames the entire comparison between the two: a modern mobile chip outruns an older desktop flagship in a general-purpose compute workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 6650M XT sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, while the RX Vega 64 sits at the 86th percentile. That five-point percentile gap reflects the performance separation seen in the head-to-head result. The RX 6650M XT's average benchmark score is 76,904, which matches its single recorded Geekbench OpenCL score. The RX Vega 64's average benchmark score is 50,001, which is considerably lower than its OpenCL score because the database also records its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,669, its Geekbench Metal score of 68,750, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 67,032. The RX 6650M XT has no other benchmark entries beyond OpenCL, so the database average is skewed by the Vega 64's multiple tests.

The nearest rivals for the RX 6650M XT include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D at 77,712 points (1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT at 78,940 points (2.6% higher), and two NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants at 79,396 and 79,605 points (3.1% and 3.4% higher). This places the RX 6650M XT just below a top-tier desktop GeForce card and a higher-tier mobile Radeon, which is a strong position for a 120 W mobile part. The RX Vega 64's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49,957 points (0.1% higher), the Intel Arc A550M at 49,737 points (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951 points (1.9% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT at 48,477 points (3.1% lower). Notably, the RX Vega 64's average score is nearly identical to the RTX 5070 Ti, a much newer card, but the RX Vega 64's OpenCL score is far above its average, meaning its compute capability is its strongest asset.

In the single head-to-head test, the RX 665M XT wins outright. The RX Vega 64 does not win any recorded benchmark against the RX 6650M XT. The data shows a clear, one-sided performance relationship: the RX 6650M XT is faster in the shared workload.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The RX 6650M XT uses RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the RX Vega 64 uses GCN 5.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference is critical: the RX 6650M XT packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX Vega 64 has 12,500 million transistors spread across a 495 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 6650M XT achieves nearly double the transistor density, which explains how it delivers higher performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The chip designs differ sharply. The RX 6650M XT uses the Navi 23 chip, while the RX Vega 64 uses Vega 10. The RX Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. The RX 6650M XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX Vega 64 has twice the shading units and twice the TMUs, yet it still loses the OpenCL benchmark. This indicates that architectural efficiency, not raw unit count, drives the result. The RX 6650M XT also includes 32 ray tracing cores; the RX Vega 64 has none. This is a hard feature difference: the RX 6650M XT supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the RX Vega 64 does not.

Memory architectures are entirely different. The RX 6650M XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, providing 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 has nearly double the memory bandwidth, which should benefit certain memory-bound workloads, but the RX 6650M XT compensates with much higher clock speeds. The RX 6650M XT's base clock is 2068 MHz, its game clock is 2162 MHz, and its boost clock is 2416 MHz. The RX Vega 64's base clock is 1247 MHz and its boost clock is 1546 MHz. The RX 6650M XT runs roughly 60% higher boost clocks, which offsets the Vega 64's bandwidth advantage in compute tasks.

The API support also differs. The RX 6650M XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. This means the RX 6650M XT can run the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate features, including ray tracing and variable rate shading, while the RX Vega 64 is limited to the earlier DirectX 12 feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6650M XT wins in compute throughput, as shown by the 22.9% OpenCL lead. It also wins on architectural features: ray tracing support, newer DirectX 12 Ultimate API, and a significantly smaller and more power-efficient design. The RX 6650M XT has a TDP of 120 W, while the RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W. The RX 6650M XT requires no power connectors and uses an integrated form factor (IGP), while the RX Vega 64 is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 600 W power supply. The RX 6650M XT is a mobile part, so it offers portable device dependent display outputs; the RX Vega 64 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The RX Vega 64 wins on memory bandwidth, with 483.8 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. It also has higher raw FP32 throughput on paper: 12.66 TFLOPS versus 9.896 TFLOPS for the RX 6650M XT. Yet the OpenCL benchmark shows the RX 6650M XT outperforming it, which suggests the Vega 64's theoretical FP32 advantage does not translate to real-world compute performance in this test. The RX Vega 64 also has higher texture fill rate (395.8 GTexel/s versus 309.2 GTexel/s), but lower pixel rate (98.94 GPixel/s versus 154.6 GPixel/s). The RX 6650M XT's higher pixel rate indicates faster rasterization throughput at the output stage.

For gaming workloads, the data suggests the RX 6650M XT is better equipped: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing, and its higher pixel rate means faster fill performance. The RX Vega 64's higher bandwidth and texture rate could favor high-resolution texture-heavy scenarios, but the lack of ray tracing and older API support limit its future-proofing.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Process node: RX 6650M XT is 7 nm (TSMC); RX Vega 64 is 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistor count: 11,060 million vs 12,500 million
• Die size: 237 mm² vs 495 mm²
• Transistor density: 46.7M / mm² vs 25.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 2068 MHz vs 1247 MHz
• Boost clock: 2416 MHz vs 1546 MHz
• Game clock: 2162 MHz vs not applicable (none listed)
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) vs 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective)
• Memory type: GDDR6 vs HBM2
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs 2048 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s vs 483.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 2048 vs 4096
• TMUs: 128 vs 256
• ROPs: 64 vs 64 (same, so not a difference but listed for completeness)
• Ray tracing cores: 32 vs none
• Pixel rate: 154.6 GPixel/s vs 98.94 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 309.2 GTexel/s vs 395.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 9.896 TFLOPS vs 12.66 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 19.79 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 120 W vs 295 W
• Slot width: IGP vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 600 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: No length/height/width listed vs 280 mm (11 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 40 mm (1.6 inches) width
• Release date: 2022-01-03 vs 2017-08-06
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile vs Polaris
• Successor: None listed vs Navi
• Launch MSRP: None listed vs 499 USD

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT scores 76,904 points, which is 22.9% higher than the RX Vega 64's 62,552 points.

Q: Does the RX Vega 64 have more shading units?

A: Yes, the RX Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units, while the RX 6650M XT has 2,048.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT has 32 ray tracing cores. The RX Vega 64 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX Vega 64 has 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth using HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, while the RX 6650M XT has 256.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a lower TDP?

A: The RX 6650M XT has a TDP of 120 W, whereas the RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The RX 6650M XT was released on 2022-01-03, while the RX Vega 64 was released on 2017-08-06.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT is the superior GPU. It wins the only shared benchmark by 22.9%, sits at a higher percentile (91st vs 86th), supports modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, and does so at a TDP of 120 W versus 295 W. The RX 6650M XT is also smaller (237 mm² die vs 495 mm²) and denser (46.7M transistors per mm² vs 25.3M per mm²), reflecting a more efficient design.

The RX Vega 64 retains specific advantages: memory bandwidth (483.8 GB/s vs 256.0 GB/s), texture rate (395.8 GTexel/s vs 309.2 GTexel/s), and raw FP32 throughput (12.66 TFLOPS vs 9.896 TFLOPS). These specifications could benefit workloads that are heavily memory-bound or texture-bound, and the RX Vega 64's 2048-bit HBM2 bus is a unique asset. However, the OpenCL result shows that the RX 6650M XT's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome these theoretical advantages in practice.

For users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, ray tracing, and power efficiency, the RX 6650M XT is the data-backed choice. For users who need maximum memory bandwidth or who rely on texture-heavy rendering pipelines, the RX Vega 64 offers specific strengths, but it is an older, hotter, and less feature-rich option. The database's benchmark evidence favors the RX 6650M XT without ambiguity.