GeForce GTX 750 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	496	504
Place by popularity	32	83
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	4.45
Power efficiency	41.26	10.90
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Vega	GM107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)	18 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$119

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	512	512
Core clock speed	no data	1020 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	1085 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	55 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	95 °C
Texture fill rate	no data	34.72
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.111 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	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).

Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	4 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	5.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	80 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 data	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	3 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D	-	+
3D Gaming	-	+
3D Vision	-	+
3D Vision Live	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.4
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.1.126
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 8.66
+3.2%

GTX 750 8.39

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743

GTX 750 3970
+6.1%

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	23 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
1440p	16 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
4K	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	5.67
1440p	no data	8.50
4K	no data	14.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Forza Horizon 5	21 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Metro Exodus	27 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +10%	30−33 −10%
Valorant	44 +10%	40−45 −10%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +10%	10−11 −10%
Dota 2	29 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Far Cry 5	30 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Fortnite	50−55 +6%	50−55 −6%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Forza Horizon 5	13 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Metro Exodus	19 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	57 +3.6%	55−60 −3.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12 +20%	10−11 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Valorant	14 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
World of Tanks	48 +6.7%	45−50 −6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Dota 2	48 +6.7%	45−50 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +5.7%	35−40 −5.7%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Forza Horizon 5	14 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +7.7%	65−70 −7.7%
Valorant	37 +5.7%	35−40 −5.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	22 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
World of Tanks	21 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Metro Exodus	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Valorant	39 +11.4%	35−40 −11.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Metro Exodus	6 +20%	5−6 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	13 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Fortnite	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Forza Horizon 4	9 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Valorant	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 750 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 10% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 14% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 13% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.66	8.39
Recency	7 January 2020	18 February 2014
Chip lithography	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	55 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 3.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 750.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 750 is a desktop one.

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