Radeon RX 6750 XT vs RTX A4500 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A4500 Mobile with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6750 XT outperforms RTX A4500 Mobile by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 80 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 51.94 |
| Power efficiency | 22.18 | 14.90 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GA104 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 5888 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,400 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 276.0 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 17.66 TFLOPS | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 184 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 184 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | 40 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 130−140
−26.9%
| 165
+26.9%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
−24.3%
| 87
+24.3%
|
| 4K | 40−45
−27.5%
| 51
+27.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.31 |
| 4K | no data | 10.76 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−69.4%
|
166
+69.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
−68.4%
|
165
+68.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−5.4%
|
110−120
+5.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−32.7%
|
130
+32.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+53.1%
|
64
−53.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230
−62.1%
|
368
+62.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
−24.6%
|
142
+24.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
−44.2%
|
150
+44.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 85−90
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−26.8%
|
230−240
+26.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−5.4%
|
110−120
+5.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−11.2%
|
109
+11.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+81.5%
|
54
−81.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−18.7%
|
159
+18.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+112%
|
49
−112%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
−14.3%
|
210−220
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230
−33.9%
|
304
+33.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
−19.3%
|
130−140
+19.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
−20.9%
|
162
+20.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
−15.4%
|
120
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
−2.4%
|
210−220
+2.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 85−90
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
−6.1%
|
170−180
+6.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−26.8%
|
230−240
+26.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−5.4%
|
110−120
+5.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+2.1%
|
96
−2.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+100%
|
49
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+2.3%
|
131
−2.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
−9.6%
|
110−120
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230
−14.5%
|
260
+14.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
−13.2%
|
129
+13.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
−2.4%
|
210−220
+2.4%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−26.8%
|
230−240
+26.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−24.7%
|
106
+24.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
−23.3%
|
106
+23.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−27.7%
|
60−65
+27.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 280−290
−22.4%
|
350−400
+22.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−7.6%
|
85−90
+7.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30
−63.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
−11.1%
|
160−170
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
−37.8%
|
186
+37.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
−25%
|
95−100
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
−32.6%
|
126
+32.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
−28.9%
|
100−110
+28.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−31.8%
|
190−200
+31.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
−11.8%
|
104
+11.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90−95
−11.8%
|
104
+11.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−23.7%
|
47
+23.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−25.3%
|
180−190
+25.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
−30%
|
35−40
+30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
−11.8%
|
104
+11.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−25.9%
|
65−70
+25.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+90.9%
|
11
−90.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
13
−69.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
−8.6%
|
101
+8.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
−32.4%
|
90−95
+32.4%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−30.9%
|
85−90
+30.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−28.6%
|
99
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−29.5%
|
55−60
+29.5%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−37%
|
110−120
+37%
|
This is how RTX A4500 Mobile and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is 27% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT is 24% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 XT is 28% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A4500 Mobile is 112% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 69% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A4500 Mobile is ahead in 9 tests (14%)
- RX 6750 XT is ahead in 53 tests (83%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.61 | 52.33 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 250 Watt |
RTX A4500 Mobile has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 78.6% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX A4500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX A4500 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
