GeForce GT 625M vs Radeon HD 6750M

Place in the ranking	838	1038
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.84	5.76
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Whistler	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 January 2011 (13 years ago)	1 October 2012 (12 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	480	96
Core clock speed	600 MHz	Up to 625 MHz
Number of transistors	716 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	14.40	10.00
Floating-point processing power	0.576 TFLOPS	0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	24	16

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	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	Up to 14.4 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	No outputs	No outputs
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	Up to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 API
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

HD 6750M 2.43
+96%

GT 625M 1.24

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.

HD 6750M 937
+96%

GT 625M 478

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.

HD 6750M 1159
+25.8%

GT 625M 921

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	21 +110%	10−12 −110%
Full HD	24 +100%	12−14 −100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how HD 6750M and GT 625M compete in popular games:

HD 6750M is 110% faster in 900p
HD 6750M is 100% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6750M is 450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6750M is ahead in 43 tests (91%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.43	1.24
Recency	4 January 2011	1 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	15 Watt

HD 6750M has a 96% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 625M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 6750M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.