Radeon HD 6750 vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 and Radeon HD 6750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 680 outperforms HD 6750 by a whopping 437% 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 | 376 | 826 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.65 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 5.08 | 2.14 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Juniper |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 21 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $49.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 680 has 1667% better value for money than HD 6750.
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 | 720 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 86 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 25.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 1.008 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 36 |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | 170 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 2048 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 73.6 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 45
+463%
| 8−9
−463%
|
| Full HD | 75
+525%
| 12−14
−525%
|
| 4K | 25
+525%
| 4−5
−525%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65
−59.7%
| 4.17
+59.7%
|
| 4K | 19.96
−59.7%
| 12.50
+59.7%
|
- HD 6750 has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- HD 6750 has 60% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+443%
|
14−16
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+443%
|
14−16
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+443%
|
14−16
−443%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 224
+460%
|
40−45
−460%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+450%
|
16−18
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+460%
|
10−11
−460%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+450%
|
16−18
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+461%
|
18−20
−461%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+490%
|
21−24
−490%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+492%
|
24−27
−492%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+444%
|
9−10
−444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
This is how GTX 680 and HD 6750 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680 is 463% faster in 900p
- GTX 680 is 525% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680 is 525% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.51 | 2.33 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 21 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 86 Watt |
GTX 680 has a 436.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6750, on the other hand, has 126.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6750 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
