RTX A4000 vs GeForce GT 750M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 750M with RTX A4000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4000 outperforms 750M by a whopping 1351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 812 | 87 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.95 | 25.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 January 2013 (13 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 941 MHz | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 967 MHz | 1560 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.94 | 299.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7427 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 6 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3/GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1003 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.19 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 21
−1329%
| 300−350
+1329%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−1344%
|
260−270
+1344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1338%
|
230−240
+1338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1329%
|
200−210
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1329%
|
700−750
+1329%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
−1304%
|
800−850
+1304%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−1190%
|
400−450
+1190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−1344%
|
260−270
+1344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1338%
|
230−240
+1338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1329%
|
200−210
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1329%
|
700−750
+1329%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−1190%
|
400−450
+1190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1338%
|
230−240
+1338%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1329%
|
200−210
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1329%
|
700−750
+1329%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−1344%
|
260−270
+1344%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1150%
|
300−310
+1150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−1329%
|
400−450
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1190%
|
400−450
+1190%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1300%
|
210−220
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1300%
|
210−220
+1300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1344%
|
130−140
+1344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
This is how GT 750M and RTX A4000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A4000 is 1329% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.20 | 46.43 |
| Recency | 9 January 2013 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 140 Watt |
GT 750M has 180% lower power consumption.
RTX A4000, on the other hand, has a 1351% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 750M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 750M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A4000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
