Radeon RX 6750 XT vs ATI HD 5670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5670 and Radeon RX 6750 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6750 XT outperforms ATI HD 5670 by a whopping 2500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 886 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 51.94 |
| Power efficiency | 2.24 | 14.91 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Redwood | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6750 XT has 19877% better value for money than ATI HD 5670.
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 | 400 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.50 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.62 TFLOPS | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
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:
| 900p | 26
−2400%
| 650−700
+2400%
|
| Full HD | 32
−416%
| 165
+416%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−2800%
| 87
+2800%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5000%
| 51
+5000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.72
−11.8%
| 3.33
+11.8%
|
| 1440p | 39.67
−529%
| 6.31
+529%
|
| 4K | 119.00
−1005%
| 10.76
+1005%
|
- RX 6750 XT has 12% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT has 529% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6750 XT has 1005% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1283%
|
166
+1283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2650%
|
165
+2650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2825%
|
110−120
+2825%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−983%
|
130
+983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−3245%
|
368
+3245%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−7400%
|
150
+7400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2825%
|
110−120
+2825%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−808%
|
109
+808%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−800%
|
54
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−3875%
|
159
+3875%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−250%
|
49
+250%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−1864%
|
210−220
+1864%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−2664%
|
304
+2664%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−3950%
|
162
+3950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−5900%
|
120
+5900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−975%
|
210−220
+975%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
−598%
|
270−280
+598%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2825%
|
110−120
+2825%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−700%
|
96
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−717%
|
49
+717%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−3175%
|
131
+3175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−714%
|
110−120
+714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−2264%
|
260
+2264%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−975%
|
210−220
+975%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 106 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1057%
|
160−170
+1057%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−5900%
|
60−65
+5900%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−2592%
|
350−400
+2592%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 85−90 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2040%
|
100−110
+2040%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−2388%
|
190−200
+2388%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−550%
|
104
+550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−3033%
|
180−190
+3033%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3300%
|
65−70
+3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−531%
|
101
+531%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Valorant | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 5670 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is 2400% faster in 900p
- RX 6750 XT is 416% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT is 2800% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 XT is 5000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 7400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is ahead in 47 tests (78%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.06 | 53.55 |
| Recency | 14 January 2010 | 3 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 250 Watt |
ATI HD 5670 has 290.6% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 2499.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5670 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
