UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) vs Quadro RTX 5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) by a whopping 1144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 101 | 751 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.95 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.33 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Rocket Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,299 | no data |
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 | 3072 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1620 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1815 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 348.5 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.15 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 192 | no data |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 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 3.0 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 | 16 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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 | 210−220
+1135%
| 17
−1135%
|
| 1440p | 180−190
+1100%
| 15
−1100%
|
| 4K | 120−130
+1100%
| 10
−1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.95 | no data |
| 1440p | 12.77 | no data |
| 4K | 19.16 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how RTX 5000 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 is 1135% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 is 1100% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 is 1100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.69 | 3.19 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
RTX 5000 has a 1144.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 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.
