HD 8750M vs R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
3.05
+20.6%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 21% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking722787
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for moneyno data0.23
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreMars Pro
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years old)16 November 2012 (11 years old)
Current priceno data$338
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores512384
Core clock speed720 MHz620 MHz
Boost clock speedno data775 MHz
Number of transistorsno data950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Texture fill rateno data18.60
Floating-point performanceno data595.2 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Radeon HD 8750M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8

Memory

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 typeno dataGDDR5, DDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 - 4000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Video outputs and ports

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 dataNo outputs

API support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkanno data1.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 3.05
+20.6%
HD 8750M 2.53

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 21% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2302
+35.6%
HD 8750M 1698

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 36% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1616
+26.6%
HD 8750M 1277

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 27% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 10341
+21.3%
HD 8750M 8525

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 21% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 20
+16.6%
HD 8750M 17

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 8750M by 17% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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:

900p27−30
+17.4%
23
−17.4%
Full HD18
−11.1%
20
+11.1%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and HD 8750M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 17.4% faster than HD 8750M

1080p resolution:

  • HD 8750M is 11.1% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 100% faster than the HD 8750M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 36 tests (68%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (32%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 3.05 2.53
Recency 14 January 2014 16 November 2012

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8750M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while Radeon HD 8750M is a notebook one.


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

User ratings

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


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
AMD Radeon HD 8750M
Radeon HD 8750M

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.2 14 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 183 votes

Rate AMD Radeon HD 8750M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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