UHD Graphics 750 vs Radeon Pro 5500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 5500M with UHD Graphics 750, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms UHD Graphics 750 by a whopping 292% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 321 | 671 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.24 | 20.61 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Rocket Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 30 March 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 | 1536 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 139.2 | 20.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.454 TFLOPS | 0.6656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 96 | 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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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 | 59
+321%
| 14−16
−321%
|
| 1440p | 60
+329%
| 14−16
−329%
|
| 4K | 34
+325%
| 8−9
−325%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+347%
|
16−18
−347%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+409%
|
10−12
−409%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+240%
|
20−22
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+259%
|
16−18
−259%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+132%
|
55−60
−132%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+265%
|
16−18
−265%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 208
+181%
|
70−75
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Dota 2 | 111
+311%
|
27−30
−311%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+409%
|
10−12
−409%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+240%
|
20−22
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+393%
|
14−16
−393%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+259%
|
16−18
−259%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+132%
|
55−60
−132%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+247%
|
16−18
−247%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+296%
|
27−30
−296%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+240%
|
20−22
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+259%
|
16−18
−259%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Valorant | 28
−100%
|
55−60
+100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 118
+269%
|
30−35
−269%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 107
+257%
|
30−33
−257%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+257%
|
45−50
−257%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+338%
|
21−24
−338%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Pro 5500M and UHD Graphics 750 compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 321% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 329% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 325% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5500M is 2250% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 750 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is ahead in 57 tests (97%)
- UHD Graphics 750 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.66 | 4.51 |
| Recency | 13 November 2019 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pro 5500M has a 291.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
UHD Graphics 750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 466.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 750 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics 750 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.
