UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs ATI Radeon HD 5850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5850 with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, including specs and performance data.
HD 5850 outperforms Graphics 750 32EUs by a significant 20% 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 | 683 | 743 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.57 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.42 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | Cypress | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 September 2009 (16 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1440 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 52.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.088 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 72 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 59
+31.1%
| 45−50
−31.1%
|
| Full HD | 57
+256%
| 16
−256%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.25 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14
−7.1%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+11.1%
|
50−55
−11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+25%
|
16
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+16.9%
|
70−75
−16.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+20.6%
|
34
−20.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+23.1%
|
13
−23.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+11.1%
|
50−55
−11.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+33.3%
|
15
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+32.3%
|
31
−32.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+23.3%
|
30−33
−23.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+23.8%
|
40−45
−23.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how ATI HD 5850 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5850 is 31% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5850 is 256% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 5850 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI HD 5850 surpassed UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.75 | 3.95 |
| Recency | 30 September 2009 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
ATI HD 5850 has a 20.3% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 5850 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5850 is a desktop graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
