Radeon HD 7750 vs Pro 560

Place in the ranking	482	672
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	1.26
Power efficiency	8.30	5.49
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	Cape Verde
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	15 February 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024	512
Core clock speed	907 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	58.05	25.60
Floating-point processing power	1.858 TFLOPS	0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	32

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
Bus support	no data	PCIe 2.1 x16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1270 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.28 GB/s	72 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 11
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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.

Pro 560 9.04
+106%

HD 7750 4.39

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.

Pro 560 3475
+106%

HD 7750 1688

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.

Pro 560 3892
+73.8%

HD 7750 2240

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Elden Ring	24−27 +108%	12−14 −108%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +107%	14−16 −107%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Valorant	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +107%	14−16 −107%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Dota 2	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Elden Ring	24−27 +108%	12−14 −108%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%
Fortnite	50−55 +121%	24−27 −121%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +137%	30−33 −137%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Valorant	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%
World of Tanks	130−140 +122%	60−65 −122%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +107%	14−16 −107%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Dota 2	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +137%	30−33 −137%
Valorant	30−35 +106%	16−18 −106%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Elden Ring	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +110%	21−24 −110%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
World of Tanks	65−70 +117%	30−33 −117%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Valorant	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Dota 2	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Elden Ring	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Fortnite	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Valorant	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.04	4.39
Recency	18 April 2017	15 February 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm

Pro 560 has a 105.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7750 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 7750 is a desktop one.

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