Radeon RX 6750 XT vs HD Graphics 3000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6750 XT outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 8055% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1196 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | 94 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 51.94 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.92 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT2+ | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.60 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 12 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 432.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 9
−1733%
| 165
+1733%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−8600%
| 87
+8600%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 51 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.31 |
| 4K | no data | 10.76 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1409%
|
166
+1409%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5400%
|
165
+5400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1082%
|
130
+1082%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2033%
|
64
+2033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−5157%
|
368
+5157%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−891%
|
109
+891%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1700%
|
54
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 3
−5200%
|
159
+5200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−444%
|
49
+444%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−21500%
|
210−220
+21500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−4243%
|
304
+4243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2289%
|
210−220
+2289%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3380%
|
170−180
+3380%
|
| World of Tanks | 11
−2436%
|
270−280
+2436%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−773%
|
96
+773%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1533%
|
49
+1533%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−1771%
|
131
+1771%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1167%
|
110−120
+1167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3614%
|
260
+3614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2289%
|
210−220
+2289%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5733%
|
170−180
+5733%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−17400%
|
350−400
+17400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3900%
|
160−170
+3900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2600%
|
100−110
+2600%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−3880%
|
190−200
+3880%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−9300%
|
180−190
+9300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−573%
|
101
+573%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−11000%
|
110−120
+11000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 3000 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is 1733% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT is 8600% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 21500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is ahead in 36 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.64 | 52.19 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 3 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
RX 6750 XT has a 8054.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 3000 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 3000 is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
