AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in synthetic benchmarks, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost or the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It scores 9,302 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7,435 for the AMD, a 25.1% advantage, and 10,041 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 6,970, a 44.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has an average benchmark score of 8,067, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203. The NVIDIA card also sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the AMD part's 39th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU according to the database?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8,080, 0.2% behind), GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, 0.2% ahead), GeForce GTX 880M (8,040, 0.3% ahead), and Quadro P5000 (8,039, 0.3% ahead). The Vega 8 Mobile's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222, 0.3% behind), GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, 0.4% ahead), Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, 0.5% ahead), and GeForce GTX 970 (7,157, 0.6% ahead).

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference between these two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. This means AMD's Raven-M chip has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² for NVIDIA's GK106.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W and requires a 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors, as it relies on system power.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven-M chip, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. The manufacturing process difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm, which partly explains why AMD packs nearly twice the transistors (4,940 million versus 2,540 million) into a similar die area (210 mm² versus 221 mm²). The resulting transistor density is 23.5M per mm² for AMD versus 11.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The two chips also differ fundamentally in their compute resource allocation. The NVIDIA part has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This gives the GTX 650 Ti Boost substantially higher pixel and texture throughput: 16.51 GPixel/s and 66.05 GTexel/s versus 8.808 GPixel/s and 35.23 GTexel/s for the Vega 8 Mobile. The NVIDIA chip also delivers higher FP32 performance at 1.585 TFLOPS compared to 1,127.4 GFLOPS for the AMD part. Notably, the AMD chip offers FP16 capability at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), a feature the Kepler part lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 650 Ti Boost features dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated GPU that shares system memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the NVIDIA card has predictable, dedicated bandwidth, while the AMD part's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration.

The API support also differs. NVIDIA reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD chip's newer architecture also gives it a more advanced feature set for modern graphics workloads, even if its raw throughput is lower. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is a discrete, dual-slot card with a 241 mm length and a 6-pin power connector, while the Vega 8 Mobile is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and dimensions dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparison tests between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 9,302 against 7,435 for the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, a 25.1% margin. This is a substantial gap that reflects the NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count, greater texture throughput, and dedicated memory bandwidth. The OpenCL test exercises general compute workloads, where the Kepler chip's 768 shaders and 1.585 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput give it a clear edge over the Vega 8's 512 shaders and 1,127.4 GFLOPS.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger difference. The GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 10,041, while the Vega 8 Mobile scores 6,970, resulting in a 44.1% advantage for NVIDIA. This wider margin in Vulkan suggests that the NVIDIA card handles the low-level graphics API more efficiently relative to its architecture, or that the integrated AMD GPU is more constrained by shared memory access in this workload. The absolute numbers confirm the pattern: the NVIDIA card exceeds 10,000 in Vulkan, while the AMD part falls below 7,000.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the GTX 650 Ti Boost averages 8,067, placing it at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. The Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203, at the 39th percentile. The delta in average scores is roughly 12%, which is meaningful but smaller than the head-to-head margins, indicating that the NVIDIA part's advantage is consistent across different test types. The nearest rival data reinforces this positioning: the GTX 650 Ti Boost trades blows within 0.3% of cards like the GRID K2 and GTX 650 Ti, while the Vega 8 Mobile sits within 0.6% of the GTX 750 and GTX 560 SE. These rival clusters show that the NVIDIA card competes in a higher performance tier than the AMD integrated solution.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The process node is 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 2,540 million versus 4,940 million. Die size is 221 mm² versus 210 mm². Transistor density is 11.5M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm². The base clock is 980 MHz for the NVIDIA card versus 300 MHz for the AMD part, while boost clocks are 1,032 MHz and 1,101 MHz respectively. The NVIDIA card has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; the AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Memory is a fundamental split. The NVIDIA card has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width, and bandwidth is system dependent. Pixel rate is 16.51 GPixel/s versus 8.808 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 66.05 GTexel/s versus 35.23 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.585 TFLOPS versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS. The AMD card has FP16 at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1), while the NVIDIA card has no FP16 capability listed.

TDP is 134 W for NVIDIA versus 25 W for AMD. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU; the AMD part is an IGP with no slot width, no connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus IGP. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA, versus portable device dependent for AMD. API support differs in DirectX version (12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)) and Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.3). The NVIDIA card has physical dimensions of 241 mm (9.5 inches) length; the AMD part has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are 2013-03-25 for NVIDIA and 2019-01-07 for AMD. The NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 169 USD; the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost wins in every recorded benchmark category. It is the clear choice for raw compute performance, leading by 25.1% in OpenCL and 44.1% in Vulkan. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent performance that does not depend on system memory configuration, making it more predictable for gaming and graphics workloads. The higher pixel rate (16.51 GPixel/s) and texture rate (66.05 GTexel/s) mean it can fill frames and apply textures faster, which matters for resolution-heavy tasks. Its 768 shading units and 1.585 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput give it a strong foundation for general-purpose compute. The card also benefits from a higher base clock of 980 MHz versus 300 MHz, though the AMD part boosts higher to 1,101 MHz.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is dramatically lower than the NVIDIA card's 134 W, making it suitable for portable devices where battery life and thermals are paramount. As an IGP, it requires no additional power connectors, no discrete cooling solution, and takes up no expansion slot. Its 14 nm process and 4,940 million transistors in a 210 mm² die show a more modern manufacturing approach, and its FP16 capability at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) gives it an edge in workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic. The newer API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, means it can handle more recent graphics features even if its raw throughput is lower. The 1,101 MHz boost clock is also higher than the NVIDIA card's 1,032 MHz boost, which helps close the gap in burst scenarios.

For use-case planning, the GTX 650 Ti Boost suits desktop systems where power draw is acceptable and dedicated memory is required for stable frame rates. The Vega 8 Mobile fits thin-and-light laptops or portable devices where the 25 W TDP and integrated form factor are non-negotiable, and where the system's shared memory can be configured for adequate bandwidth. The database shows the NVIDIA part outperforming the AMD part by a wide margin in synthetic tests, but the AMD solution's architectural advantages in process node, API support, and power efficiency make it the better fit for its intended mobile segment. The average benchmark scores, 8,067 versus 7,203, confirm that the discrete NVIDIA card occupies a higher performance tier, while the Vega 8 Mobile remains competitive within its integrated class.