Radeon HD 6750 vs HD 6990M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire with Radeon HD 6750, including specs and performance data.
HD 6990M Crossfire outperforms HD 6750 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 468 | 818 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.17 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb XTX | Juniper |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 12 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 21 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49.99 |
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 | 2240 | 720 |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x1700 Million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 86 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 25.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.008 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 36 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 73.6 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 Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
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 | 99
+267%
| 27−30
−267%
|
| Full HD | 108
+260%
| 30−35
−260%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.67 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+300%
|
35−40
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+272%
|
18−20
−272%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+272%
|
18−20
−272%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+289%
|
18−20
−289%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+283%
|
12−14
−283%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+278%
|
27−30
−278%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how HD 6990M Crossfire and HD 6750 compete in popular games:
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 267% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 260% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.75 | 2.72 |
| Recency | 12 July 2011 | 21 January 2011 |
HD 6990M Crossfire has a 258.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 5 months.
The Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6750 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6750 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.
