AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two benchmark tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE wins both. The largest margin appears in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the AMD card scores 2336 against 1767 for the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, a 32.2% advantage. This is a substantial gap in a modern DirectX 12 workload, indicating that the RX 7650 GRE delivers markedly higher rasterization throughput in current-generation gaming scenarios.

The second comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a narrower but still decisive win for AMD. The RX 7650 GRE scores 83109, while the RTX 2000 Ada scores 78074, a 6.4% difference. OpenCL measures general-purpose compute performance, and while the AMD card leads here too, the margin is much smaller than in the 3DMark test. The data suggests the two cards are closer in compute-heavy tasks than in gaming-oriented workloads.

Context from the database's overall average scores reinforces this picture. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE has an average benchmark score of 42723 and sits at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (average 43223, delta -1.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43262, -1.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43268, -1.3%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (43301, -1.3%). This places the RX 7650 GRE in a performance tier just below the RTX 4070 SUPER, which is itself a high-end desktop card.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 18954 and sits at the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, -0.4%), the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18866, +0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.5%). The RTX 2000 Ada is therefore positioned alongside older flagship workstation cards and a mid-range desktop GPU, not current-generation high-end parts.

The average score gap is substantial: 42723 versus 18954, meaning the RX 7650 GRE averages more than double the score of the RTX 2000 Ada across the database's full benchmark suite. That is a dramatic difference in overall performance class, even though the two cards target different market segments.

FAQ

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE show its largest advantage over the RTX 2000 Ada Generation?

A: The largest win is in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the RX 7650 GRE scores 2336 against 1767, a 32.2% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL margin is smaller at 6.4% (83109 vs 78074).

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall database percentile ranking?

A: The RX 7650 GRE sits at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation sits at the 63rd percentile. The average benchmark scores are 42723 and 18954 respectively.

Q: Which card has more shading units, and what does that indicate?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2816 shading units, versus 2048 for the AMD RX 7650 GRE. However, the AMD card still wins both head-to-head benchmarks, indicating that raw shading unit count alone does not determine performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7650 GRE has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has higher bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE has a boost clock of 2695 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a boost clock of 2130 MHz. The base clocks are 1720 MHz and 1620 MHz respectively.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in their API support.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture and belongs to the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation.

The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses TSMC's 6 nm node, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm node. The transistor counts are notably different as well. The RX 7650 GRE contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The RTX 2000 Ada contains 18,900 million transistors on a smaller 159 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The smaller, denser NVIDIA chip reflects the more advanced process node.

Compute resources are arranged differently. The AMD card has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 22 RT cores, and 88 tensor cores. The AMD card has more TMUs and ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has more shading units and adds tensor cores, which the AMD card does not have at all.

Clock behavior also differs. The RX 7650 GRE lists base, boost, and game clocks (1720 MHz, 2695 MHz, and 2350 MHz respectively), while the RTX 2000 Ada lists only base and boost (1620 MHz and 2130 MHz) with no game clock specification. The AMD card runs at higher frequencies across the board.

The resulting throughput figures reflect these differences. The RX 7650 GRE delivers 172.5 GPixel/s pixel rate, 345.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 22.08 TFLOPS FP32 (also 22.08 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1). The RTX 2000 Ada delivers 102.2 GPixel/s, 187.4 GTexel/s, and 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 (12.00 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1). The AMD card has roughly double the pixel, texture, and FP32 throughput.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The RX 7650 GRE has a TDP of 170 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The RTX 2000 Ada has a 70 W TDP, needs no power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the NVIDIA card is much more power-efficient.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The RX 7650 GRE is 204 mm (8 inches) long and 115 mm (4.5 inches) high. The RTX 2000 Ada is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. The NVIDIA card is substantially smaller in both dimensions.

Display outputs are also different: the AMD card offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the NVIDIA card offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products serving different needs. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE is the clear performance winner in both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a 32.2% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and a 6.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 42723 places it at the 83rd percentile, far above the RTX 2000 Ada's 18954 average and 63rd percentile. The RX 7650 GRE also offers higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 256.0 GB/s), higher pixel and texture rates, and more than double the FP32 throughput.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins on other axes. It has 16 GB of memory versus 8 GB, which matters for workloads that need large datasets resident in VRAM. It has tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. It draws only 70 W versus 170 W, needs no external power connector, and is physically smaller. The RTX 2000 Ada also uses the more advanced 5 nm process with higher transistor density.

For gaming and raw rendering performance, the RX 7650 GRE is the stronger choice based on the benchmark data. For low-power workstation tasks, large-memory compute, or AI-related workloads that can use tensor cores, the RTX 2000 Ada has structural advantages that the recorded benchmarks do not directly measure. The launch MSRP for the RX 7650 GRE is 279 USD, and for the RTX 2000 Ada it is 649 USD.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation:

• Process node: 6 nm (AMD) vs 5 nm (NVIDIA), both TSMC
• Transistors: 13,300 million (AMD) vs 18,900 million (NVIDIA)
• Die size: 204 mm² (AMD) vs 159 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor density: 65.2M / mm² (AMD) vs 118.9M / mm² (NVIDIA)
• Base clock: 1720 MHz (AMD) vs 1620 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost clock: 2695 MHz (AMD) vs 2130 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Game clock: 2350 MHz (AMD) vs not specified (NVIDIA)
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective (AMD) vs 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective (NVIDIA)
• Memory size: 8 GB (AMD) vs 16 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s (AMD) vs 256.0 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Shading units: 2048 (AMD) vs 2816 (NVIDIA)
• Texture mapping units: 128 (AMD) vs 88 (NVIDIA)
• Render output units: 64 (AMD) vs 48 (NVIDIA)
• Ray tracing cores: 32 (AMD) vs 22 (NVIDIA)
• Tensor cores: none (AMD) vs 88 (NVIDIA)
• Pixel rate: 172.5 GPixel/s (AMD) vs 102.2 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture rate: 345.0 GTexel/s (AMD) vs 187.4 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32 performance: 22.08 TFLOPS (AMD) vs 12.00 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16 performance: 22.08 TFLOPS (AMD) vs 12.00 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 170 W (AMD) vs 70 W (NVIDIA)
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin (AMD) vs none (NVIDIA)
• Suggested PSU: 450 W (AMD) vs 250 W (NVIDIA)
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 (AMD) vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a (NVIDIA)
• Dimensions: 204 mm x 115 mm (AMD) vs 168 mm x 69 mm (NVIDIA)
• Release date: 2025-02-06 (AMD) vs 2024-02-11 (NVIDIA)
• Predecessor: Navi II (AMD) vs Workstation Ampere (NVIDIA)
• Successor: Navi IV (AMD) vs Blackwell PRO W (NVIDIA)
• Launch MSRP: 279 USD (AMD) vs 649 USD (NVIDIA)

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE wins in: DirectX 12 gaming performance, as shown by the 32.2% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. OpenCL compute performance, with a 6.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Raw throughput metrics across the board, including pixel rate (172.5 vs 102.2 GPixel/s), texture rate (345.0 vs 187.4 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (22.08 vs 12.00 TFLOPS). Memory bandwidth, at 288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Overall database ranking, at the 83rd percentile versus 63rd. Higher clock speeds at both base and boost.

NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in: Memory capacity, with 16 GB versus 8 GB. Tensor core availability, with 88 tensor cores versus none. Power efficiency, with 70 W TDP versus 170 W, no power connector required, and a 250 W suggested PSU versus 450 W. Physical footprint, being shorter (168 mm vs 204 mm) and lower-profile (69 mm vs 115 mm). Shading unit count, with 2816 versus 2048. Manufacturing process, using the denser 5 nm node.