RTX A2000 Mobile vs GeForce GT 750M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 750M with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms GT 750M by a whopping 641% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 742 | 227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.72 | 18.43 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 941 MHz | 893 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 967 MHz | 1358 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.94 | 108.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7427 TFLOPS | 6.953 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3/GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1003 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.19 GB/s | 176.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 21
−271%
| 78
+271%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−740%
| 42
+740%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−660%
| 38
+660%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−725%
|
65−70
+725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−1280%
|
130−140
+1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−957%
|
74
+957%
|
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−725%
|
65−70
+725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−692%
|
95−100
+692%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−1280%
|
130−140
+1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−786%
|
62
+786%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1271%
|
96
+1271%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−594%
|
110−120
+594%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−533%
|
95−100
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−986%
|
75−80
+986%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−244%
|
160−170
+244%
|
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−725%
|
65−70
+725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−692%
|
95−100
+692%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−1280%
|
130−140
+1280%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
−349%
|
250−260
+349%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−614%
|
50
+614%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−368%
|
145
+368%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1157%
|
88
+1157%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−594%
|
110−120
+594%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−533%
|
95−100
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−986%
|
75−80
+986%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−783%
|
106
+783%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−633%
|
44
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−967%
|
96
+967%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−244%
|
160−170
+244%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−692%
|
95−100
+692%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
41
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−316%
|
129
+316%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1086%
|
83
+1086%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−533%
|
95−100
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−900%
|
50
+900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−244%
|
160−170
+244%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−594%
|
110−120
+594%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1225%
|
50−55
+1225%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−604%
|
160−170
+604%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−2400%
|
50
+2400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2600%
|
27
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−548%
|
170−180
+548%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−538%
|
200−210
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−675%
|
60−65
+675%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−850%
|
55−60
+850%
|
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−175%
|
44
+175%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−775%
|
140−150
+775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−620%
|
72
+620%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−767%
|
26
+767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1300%
|
40−45
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−550%
|
24−27
+550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how GT 750M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 271% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 740% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 660% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 2600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.97 | 22.01 |
| Recency | 9 January 2013 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 95 Watt |
GT 750M has 90% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 641.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 750M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 750M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
