Radeon RX 6750 XT vs Quadro FX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4000 with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.
6750 XT outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 20413% 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 | 1424 | 71 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 50.07 |
| Power efficiency | 0.13 | 15.19 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | NV40 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 April 2004 (21 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FX 4000 and RX 6750 XT have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | no data | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 375 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 222 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.500 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 12 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 640 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 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).
| Interface | AGP 8x | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x Molex | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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 | 0−1 | 163 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 88 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 50 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.37 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.24 |
| 4K | no data | 10.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 353
+0%
|
353
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 165
+0%
|
165
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 346
+0%
|
346
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 217
+0%
|
217
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220
+0%
|
220
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170
+0%
|
170
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 245
+0%
|
245
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 158
+0%
|
158
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 49.23 |
| Recency | 1 April 2004 | 3 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 250 Watt |
FX 4000 has 76.1% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 20412.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
