Radeon RX 8060S vs RX 6750 GRE 12 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB with Radeon RX 8060S, including specs and performance data.
6750 GRE 12 GB outperforms 8060S by a significant 23% 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 | 73 | 123 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 88.32 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.16 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 22 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 October 2023 (2 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $334 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 2560 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 2321 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2581 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 413.0 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.21 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 160 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 640 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | no data |
| L3 Cache | 96 MB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 432.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 | 120−130
+16.5%
| 103
−16.5%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+17.6%
| 51
−17.6%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+14.3%
| 35
−14.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.78 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.57 | no data |
| 4K | 8.35 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 215
+0%
|
215
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and RX 8060S compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 17% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 18% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 14% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 48.99 | 39.72 |
| Recency | 17 October 2023 | 6 January 2025 |
RX 6750 GRE 12 GB has a 23% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 8060S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 8060S in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 8060S is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
