OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):176 W

PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

40%

6.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

6.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 72% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

44%

5.6

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

8.9

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 70%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
powercolor-radeon-rx-6650-xt-fighter-8gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB

Based on 187 owners sharing their experience in online comments

55%positive19%mixed26%negative

Owners mostly like its strong 1080p performance, while stuttering, driver problems, and weak ray tracing are recurring frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners report stuttering, lag spikes and sudden frame drops in games such as Fortnite, GTA V and Warzone, often on Ryzen 5 chips.25
  • Some owners report frame rates well below expectations in certain games, sometimes much lower than benchmarks suggest.20
  • Some owners say the card runs hotter than expected, with hotspot temperatures reaching 90 to 100 degrees Celsius on some models.8
  • Owners say ray tracing performance is weak, with large frame rate drops when RT is turned on.5
  • Owners say 8 GB of VRAM feels limiting at 1080p in newer games and sometimes runs out of memory.5
  • Some owners say driver installs caused system problems, such as a GPU that stopped working or the error Code 43.4
  • Some owners say GPU usage drops to very low levels during gameplay, causing stutters despite high CPU use.3
  • Owners say the H.264 encoder used for streaming gives poor video quality compared with Nvidia's encoder.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components:

44%

5.6

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

8.9

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

6.1
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
10,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 10,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,543 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,543 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 70.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
17,145 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 17,145 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 68.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,495 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,495 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 73.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
10.79 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 72.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
?
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
280 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 280 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 76.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
17,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 17,500 MHz, which is slower than that of 60.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
176 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 176 W, which is lower than that of 62.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
?
Recommended PSU wattage
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
180 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 180 W, which is lower than that of 61.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
200 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 200 mm long, which is shorter than 89.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Height
129 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 129 mm tall, which is taller than 58.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
770 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 770 g, which is lighter than 73.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 5.2% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,635 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,635 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 82.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (200 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    200 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 25.1% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,190 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,190 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 18.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (176 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    176 W vs 215 W
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 8x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (32 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    32 MB vs 4 MB
  • 5.2% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,635 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,635 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 25.1% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,190 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,190 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 8x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (32 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    32 MB vs 4 MB
  • 18.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (176 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    176 W vs 215 W
  • 82.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (200 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    200 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 21.8% lower sentiment score
    6.1 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 8 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    32 vs 40
  • 52.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (10.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    10.79 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 10.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (337.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    337.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (10,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    10,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 24.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (17,145 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    17,145 points vs 22,638 points
  • 39.4% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,543 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,543 points vs 9,148 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • 37.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (7,495 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    7,495 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 37.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (280 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    280 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 7.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (17,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    17,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 51.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (11,100 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    11,100 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 4 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (129 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    129 mm vs 125 mm

Third-party reviews

What customers like about PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB

  • The 2635 MHz boost clock gives fast core speed.
  • The 200 mm length makes it easier to fit in a case.
  • Ray tracing is supported.
  • FSR support adds an upscaling option.
  • Overclocking is supported for extra speed.
  • Two fans help keep the card cool.

What customers don't like about PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB

  • The 128 bit bus limits bandwidth to 280 GB/s.
  • No DLSS, so upscaling depends on FSR.
  • No CUDA support, which some programs need.
  • Double precision floating point is not supported, which some scientific software needs.
  • The 650 W power supply recommendation may mean a PSU upgrade.

Verdict

A 2635 MHz boost clock is the main reason to look at the PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB, a card for a buyer who wants fast core speed and ray tracing. The 8 GB of memory runs at 17500 MHz effective, and the 200 mm length with two fans keeps it practical. Ray tracing and FSR are supported, but there is no DLSS and no CUDA. Its 2190 MHz GPU memory clock adds to that speed. The 650 W power supply is recommended, and the card is rated at 176 W. Its chip is rated to 110 °C, so heat is worth watching. The trade-off is 280 GB/s of bandwidth from the 128 bit bus. It suits a buyer who wants speed in games and is happy with FSR.

Compare PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of PowerColor Radeon RX 6650 XT Fighter 8GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found