Radeon HD 6750 vs Quadro M4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M with Radeon HD 6750, including specs and performance data.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.86
+487%

M4000M outperforms HD 6750 by a whopping 487% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking336799
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.15
Power efficiency10.982.17
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM204Juniper
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)21 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$49.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1,280720
Core clock speed975 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1013 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million1,040 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt86 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0025.20
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS1.008 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs8036

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data170 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s73.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+
Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12DirectX® 11
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+-
CUDA5.2-

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.

M4000M 15.86
+487%
HD 6750 2.70

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.

M4000M 6119
+487%
HD 6750 1043

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.

M4000M 7723
+513%
HD 6750 1260

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 HD63
+530%
10−12
−530%
4K20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.00
4Kno data16.66

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+500%
6−7
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+550%
8−9
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+544%
16−18
−544%
Hitman 3 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+550%
8−9
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+500%
6−7
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+550%
8−9
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+544%
16−18
−544%
Hitman 3 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+550%
8−9
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+500%
6−7
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+544%
16−18
−544%
Hitman 3 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+550%
8−9
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+507%
14−16
−507%
Hitman 3 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+513%
16−18
−513%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Hitman 3 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+575%
12−14
−575%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

This is how M4000M and HD 6750 compete in popular games:

  • M4000M is 530% faster in 1080p
  • M4000M is 567% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.86 2.70
Recency 18 August 2015 21 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 86 Watt

M4000M has a 487.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6750, on the other hand, has 16.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6750 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 6750 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M
AMD Radeon HD 6750
Radeon HD 6750

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 144 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 285 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.